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

With readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints already covering the safety profile, the description adds genuinely useful behavior: results span all salons unless one is given, ordering is newest-first, the cap is 100, and crucially the status filter applies only within the fetched page rather than globally. That page-scoped filter caveat is a real surprise-preventing detail, though nothing is said about what happens when more than 100 quotes match.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition before the mechanical details, and no filler. Slightly dense in the middle sentence, where return fields, default scoping, ordering, and page-size limit are compressed into one clause-heavy run.

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?

The return shape is already covered by the output schema, and the description still summarizes the key fields, so an agent knows what it is getting. Ordering, scoping and pagination interactions are addressed; the only loose end is behavior at the 100-item boundary (truncation vs. pagination).

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 and every parameter already carries its own explanation, including the page-scoped status note and the 'every salon when absent' default. The description restates salon scoping and the page-scoped status filter without adding format, time-window, or interaction semantics beyond 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 and resource (listing price quotes given to salon clients) plus the concrete states it surfaces (pending, approved, rejected). It also explicitly disclaims adjacent scopes ('Not for quote amounts or line items'), so an agent can separate it from detail-oriented quote tools despite no direct quote sibling existing.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger ('Use this when someone asks about price quotes given to salon clients...') and gives a negative boundary ('Not for quote amounts or line items'). It stops short of naming the alternative tool an agent should use when it does need amounts or line items, so the exclusion has no destination.

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