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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context: sections returned in order, line items nested per section with quantity/price, and the guarantee that line totals reconcile to the estimate total, plus an auth requirement (Cotlet API key with app access).

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 opening phrase 'One estimate with its sections, line items, quantities and prices' is redundant with the following sentence 'Returns one estimate with its sections in order and the line items in each section, with quantity and price.' Restating the same return shape twice wastes space, though the usage and auth notes do earn their 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully describes the return shape (ordered sections, nested line items, reconciliation to total) and flags the auth prerequisite. Adequate for a single-parameter read tool, though it omits error/not-found behavior.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema coverage; the schema already documents estimate_id and where to find it (list_estimates). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (get/read) and resource (one estimate) plus its internal structure (sections, line items, quantities, prices). The singular 'one estimate' implicitly contrasts with the sibling acculynx_list_estimates, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

"Use it to read back what was promised on a job" gives one concrete use case, but offers no when-not conditions and does not name alternatives (e.g., list_estimates for browsing multiple).

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