search-quotesSearches authorized estimates using bounded customer, status, title, and total fields; notes, terms, and addresses are excluded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of estimates to return. | |
| query | No | Estimate title, customer name, email, or phone. | |
| status | No | Optional estimate status. | |
| customer_id | No | Restrict results to one customer ID. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations already cover the safety profile, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful behavioral context by stating the search is limited to authorized estimates, bounded to specific fields, and will not search notes, terms, or addresses. This goes beyond what the schema and annotations alone provide.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the action, scope, searchable fields, and exclusions in one concise statement, which is easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
For a read-only search tool with four well-documented parameters, annotations, and no output schema, the description provides enough information to invoke the tool correctly. It is slightly incomplete because it does not mention alternatives for retrieving a single quote by ID and leaves the 'total' reference ambiguous, but these are secondary gaps.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without parameter details in the description. The description adds the exclusion of notes/terms/addresses but does not enrich parameter understanding meaningfully. The phrase 'total fields' is slightly ambiguous because there is no total parameter in the input 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?
The description clearly states the verb 'searches' and the resource 'estimates' (quotes), which distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search-invoices or search-jobs. It also adds scope by saying only authorized estimates are searched and enumerates the bounded fields, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool does.
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?
The description gives clear context: use this tool to search authorized estimates by customer, status, title, and total fields, and it explicitly says notes, terms, and addresses are excluded. It does not name alternatives like get-quote or provide an explicit when-not-to-use branch, but the resource-specific wording is enough for an agent to route correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tool families are organized by resource and action (get/search/preview/reports), so most tools have a distinct purpose. A few near-overlaps exist—customer-service-requests vs search-service-requests and the many campaign preview/search tools—but descriptions generally clarify boundaries.
The set consistently uses kebab-case with recognizable prefixes like get-, search-, preview-, and reports-, making intent predictable. A few noun-phrase tools (complaint-recall-risk, customer-service-requests, operations-parts, jobs-today) break the verb-first pattern, but they remain readable and grouped.
45 tools is well beyond the 25+ threshold and creates a large surface for agents to navigate, even though the domain is broad. Many tools are narrow read-only variations (e.g., five preview-campaign tools, three reports-* tools), which inflates the count without adding fundamentally new capabilities.
As a read-only/insights server, the surface covers customers, jobs, quotes, invoices, leads, locations, service requests, reviews, campaigns, operations, and reporting with both search and detail access. Minor gaps exist—no get-* for campaign types or social drafts—but these align with the intentionally bounded, safe-read model.