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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the privacy constraint on manage_token and the private link, enumerates all seven possible status values, and explains that answer options are named by zero-based index with option_name/addon_names resolved from the answered version. With no output schema, this return-shape detail is exactly the behavioral burden the description must carry, and it does.

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?

Content is front-loaded: the first sentence tells the agent exactly what comes back, and operational rules follow. It is long and does repeat the manage_token format already stated verbatim in the schema, which is the main case of unearned wording, but the density of information is high and the parenthetical lists are purposeful.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers statuses, answer structure and index semantics, version history, validity date, URL, token sourcing, and the privacy boundary, plus the next step for mutations. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result without opening anything else.

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 100% and the schema already explains that manage_token is the code after # in the private link, that the whole link is accepted, and that it can be supplied via an Authorization: Bearer header. The description reinforces the same facts (source tool create_quote_link, '#'-fragment format) and adds the caller-side constraint that it is never shown to the customer, which is meaning beyond the schema's type/format text.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it tells the agent it will see where a Quote Link stands, and it then enumerates the concrete payload (status, open count, every customer answer with option/add-on/amount/name/time/version, all quote versions, valid-until date, customer_url). This is clearly distinct from the sibling mutation tools create_quote_link, revise_quote_link and cancel_quote_link.

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 gives a clear operational rule for what to do with the results (report to the user only, never surface the manage token or private link to the customer) and explicitly routes mutation to revise_quote_link, including the starting point (last entry of versions). It stops short of stating explicit when-not-to-use conditions or contrasting with job_check/price_check, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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