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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The one-sentence description only states the action; it does not mention side effects, idempotency, permissions, success/failure responses, or any state changes beyond creation. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, succinct sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the core action and target audience, making it easy to parse. Every word contributes to the purpose, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits information about expected return values (e.g., created quote ID), error scenarios (e.g., invalid clientId), or any prerequisites (e.g., client must exist). While the schema covers parameters, the description does not address operational context, leaving the agent without crucial details for correct invocation and result handling.

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 each parameter already has a descriptive entry. The tool description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only reinforcing that the quote is for a client. Since the schema handles parameter documentation well, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not enrich parameter understanding further.

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 purpose: generating a new price estimate/quote for a client in Jobber. It uses a specific verb ('Generate') and a resource ('quote'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling creation tools like jobber_create_client and jobber_create_job by explicitly targeting quotes.

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 implies the tool is for creating quotes but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing client) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from context. Given the simplicity of the operation, this is acceptable but not thorough.

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