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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds meaningful behavioral details: bounded paging, most recent ordering, limited fields returned, server-side exclusions, and the hasMore pagination indicator. This goes beyond annotations and gives the agent a clear expectation of behavior.

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, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core action, then addresses returned fields, exclusions, filters, and pagination. It is efficient with no fluff, though slightly verbose in enumerating exclusions and filters.

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 description covers purpose, scope, returned fields, exclusions, filters, and pagination. Since an output schema exists, detailed return values are not necessary. It omits the default limit and error handling, but those are captured in the schema, so the description is largely complete for an agent.

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?

The input schema provides 100% descriptive coverage for all six parameters. The description merely restates that filters are optional, adding no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already defines. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (list a bounded page of salon quotes), scope (authenticated user's organization), and ordering (most recent first). It differentiates itself by focusing on salon quotes specifically, but does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use for listing quotes and mentions optional filters, but does not state when not to use it or point to a sibling like get_quote or list_appointments for other needs. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions.

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