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

Annotations already disclose that the tool is a non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds the useful precondition that the quote must be issued, but it does not explain side effects of accepting or rejecting, nor what happens afterward.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words, and the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately brief, though the brevity contributes to missing usage and parameter detail.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the definition is under-specified. Annotations cover safety and idempotency, but the description does not explain decision effects, parameter semantics, or when to choose this tool over related siblings.

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 50%: id is described as 'Beleg-ID', but accepted has no description. The tool description does not compensate by explaining that true means accepted and false means rejected, nor what quote id format is expected.

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 action: record a customer decision on an issued quote. This is clear enough to distinguish from generic document updates, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as convert_quote_to_invoice or cancel_invoice.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not clarify whether this should be used before conversion, whether it is required for quote acceptance, or how it relates to convert_quote_to_invoice.

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