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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read, so the safety bar is met. The description goes beyond that by disclosing that results are not repriced and that total_before_tax is the last priced value — a meaningful behavioral quirk. It doesn't mention pagination or the default-status scoping, but the core behavioral disclosure is strong.

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 compact sentences with zero filler. The result shape is front-loaded, followed immediately by the pricing caveat and the usage trigger — every clause earns its place.

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 does not need to explain return values, and it covers usage and the pricing caveat well. One small gap: 'your quotes' reads as all quotes while the schema default is status='open', leaving the default scoping to the schema rather than stating it.

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 both limit and status are fully documented in the schema including the enum meanings and defaults. The description only echoes 'newest first' and adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 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 resource ('your quotes') with ordering ('newest first') and enumerates the returned fields (id, number, status, item_count, expires_at, total_before_tax). It also distinguishes itself from get_quote, so an agent can tell the list tool apart from the single-fetch sibling without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit alternative ('use get_quote for current prices') and a concrete trigger for calling this tool ('to find quotes to discard when you hit the open-quote limit'). This directly ties the tool to the discard_quote workflow and to the sibling get_quote.

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