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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the PDF URL is temporary, that base64 is never returned, and that a token is required (reserved for studio). However, it does not explicitly state the operation is read-only or describe error behavior, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the access restriction, then the core purpose and return fields. There is no fluff; every clause adds information, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 the main return fields and important caveats (temporary URL, no base64), and mentions the access token. It lacks explicit error handling or response structure, but for a simple get tool with no output schema, it provides sufficient context for an agent to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 75% (auth_token lacks a description). The description adds value by explaining the number format (D-2026-003, F-2026-001), that id is an alternative, and that a token is needed. This goes beyond the schema's minimal descriptions, clarifying usage of the parameters.

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 retrieves detailed information for a single Qonto quote or invoice by number or ID, listing the specific fields returned (lines, client+address, status, links, PDF URL). This distinguishes it from siblings like qonto_list (listing) and qonto_create_* (creation) by focusing on a single document.

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?

The description clearly implies the tool is for retrieving details of one document, which is distinct from listing or creating. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use it, relying on the tool name and purpose to differentiate from siblings.

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