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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It states that the log includes both sent and filtered requests with reasons, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention read-only nature, pagination, or behavior on invalid tokens. It adds value beyond the schema but leaves some gaps for a list tool.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The reservation note is front-loaded, and the purpose and use case are stated efficiently. Every sentence 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?

For a simple list tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the distinction between sent/filtered, and the verification use case. It could mention response format or auth requirement more explicitly, but the token is hinted at, and the schema documents parameters. It's reasonably complete for an agent to understand when and how to use 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?

The schema covers days and verdict with descriptions (67% coverage). The description adds context by implying the verdict filter via 'envoyées par mail ET filtrées' and mentions the token reservation, but it does not explicitly explain parameter usage or formats beyond the schema. It provides marginal additional meaning.

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 tool's function: it lists quote requests received via send_quote_request, distinguishing between those sent by email and those filtered as spam/robots, with the reason for filtering. This is specific and differentiates it from the sibling send_quote_request (which creates requests) and other tools.

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 explicitly says it's reserved for the studio (token) and explains a primary use case: verifying that no legitimate request was filtered. While it doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use it, the reservation and verification purpose provide clear context for when an agent should invoke it.

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