Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only; changes nothing' largely restates structured data. The genuinely additive part is the disclosure of what comes back (line items, options, totals), but error behavior and access constraints are not covered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by the id source and the returned content. No filler and nothing structurally out of order.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating line items, options and totals. Combined with annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the schema only shows a UUID format/pattern with no prose. The description compensates by explaining provenance of the id, which is the piece an agent most needs; the UUID requirement itself is left to the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (fetch), resource (a FieldDraft quote), scope (one, by id) and payload (line items, options, totals). It clearly distinguishes itself from list_quotes and draft_quote by naming them as the id sources rather than alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Tells the agent where the required quoteId comes from (draft_quote or list_quotes), which is exactly the precondition needed before calling. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, but for a single-record fetch the surrounding context makes the boundary clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.