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

Annotations already establish the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the 90-day default window, the 366-day cap, draft-skipping, and a 500-quote counting limit.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger followed by the returned fields and constraints. No filler or repetition; every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't enumerate return values, and the annotations cover safety semantics. It supplies default window, caps, and draft exclusion, leaving only minor gaps such as permissions or rejection-handling nuances.

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 all three parameters (businessId, startDate, endDate) are already documented in the schema, including the date defaults and window cap. The description largely restates these; the extra 500-quote cap applies to results rather than a parameter, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (summarize) and resource (quotes/estimates), plus the exact outputs: quote count, total value, counts by status, and acceptance rate. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_receivables_summary and get_revenue_summary, which cover different domains.

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 a concrete user-intent trigger ("when someone asks how many quotes or estimates they sent, what they were worth, or how many were accepted or rejected") and adds an exclusion ("Not for a single quote"). It does not name a specific alternative tool for single-quote retrieval, but no such sibling exists in the list.

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