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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description's main contribution is return-shape context: counts per status, open value per currency, and single-quote lines/totals/deposit/acceptance details. It does not mention pagination, permissions, or rate limits, but it adds useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations.

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 wasted words, presenting list mode first and the id-based detail mode second. Every phrase contributes to either behavior or invocation.

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 list/detail tool with no output schema, the description does supply return values for both modes and annotations cover safety. However, it omits any explanation of companyId/contactId filtering, and it provides no pagination or scope expectations, so an agent lacks some context needed to use the filtering parameters confidently.

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 50%; id and status are documented in the schema, while companyId and contactId have no descriptions anywhere. The description reinforces the id mode and adds return detail, but it never explains companyId/contactId filtering, leaving a substantial semantic gap for two of four parameters.

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 states the specific verb 'List' and resource 'quotes', and distinguishes two modes: aggregate listing and single-quote retrieval by id. It is clearly a read/list operation amid quote-mutating siblings such as quotes_send and quotes_void.

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?

It gives clear context for two invocation modes: omit id for status/count/value aggregation, or pass id for one quote with line-level detail. It does not explicitly name when to avoid this tool or point to an alternative, but no sibling provides a competing quote-list capability.

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