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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds useful behavioral context: the record is retained for 90 days, access requires a token, and the quote itself is delivered via email. These details go beyond the structured hints and clarify access and data lifecycle, without contradicting any annotation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every clause earns its place. It efficiently conveys purpose, prerequisites, retention, and email behavior without extraneous detail.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what is returned. It says 'Status of a quote request' but does not specify the format or possible status values, nor whether the response includes any additional fields. The email note implies the quote is not returned, but the exact response structure remains unspecified. Given the simplicity (2 params, no nesting), this is a noticeable gap but not critical.

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% and both parameters are well described. The description restates that these are returned by request_quote, which matches the schema but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. 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 states a specific purpose: 'Status of a quote request' and clearly identifies the resource (quote request). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by tying to request_quote and mentioning the required credentials, making it evident this tool reads status rather than listing services or creating quotes.

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 clearly implies the tool is used after request_quote, stating it needs the quote_id and access_token returned by that call, and that 'there is no other way in'. This gives clear context and prerequisites, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions. The note that the quote is sent by email further clarifies what this tool does not do.

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