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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavior. It discloses the return fields and the studio-token restriction, and 'Liste compacte' implies a read-only listing. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, nor does it describe pagination, ordering, or error behavior beyond the schema's limit field.

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 short sentences with no filler. The access restriction is front-loaded, the core purpose and output fields are in the first sentence, and the specific usage scenario is in the second. 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?

The description is complete for a simple list tool: it states the purpose, the resource types, the return fields, the access restriction, and a key usage scenario. It lacks explicit confirmation of read-only behavior and does not mention pagination or response format, but the schema and output field list cover most of what an agent needs 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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that auth_token should be a studio token ('RÉSERVÉ AU STUDIO (token)'), which is otherwise undocumented in the schema. It also connects the resource types (quotes/invoices/clients) to the 'type' parameter, adding semantic context beyond the enum names.

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 verb and resource: it returns a compact list of Qonto quotes, invoices, or clients, with a clear field set (number, status, total, date, client, id). It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like qonto_get or list_quote_requests, but the resource scope and 'compacte' qualifier make the purpose reasonably distinct.

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 gives a concrete usage context: call this tool before retrying a creation when a previous call seemed to fail. It also states that the tool is reserved for the studio token. It does not name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a 5, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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