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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds real context beyond that: the object is a draft, it has no effect on client balance until converted, it is invisible until sent, it can be deleted, and it requires a Cotlet API key with app access. This is useful behavioral detail consistent with the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then behavioral notes, with no filler. The sentences each carry distinct information (draft state, invisibility, default validity, auth). Slightly dense but every line 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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the important ground: what is created, its side-effect profile, return values, default behavior, and the auth requirement. Coverage is strong and only minor edge details (e.g., error behavior) are absent.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that valid_until defaults to the client's configured validity period when omitted. That is genuine parameter semantics layered on top of an already complete schema.

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 and resource ('Create a draft quote') plus the scope ('draft'), and specifies what it returns (number and total). It clearly separates itself from send_quote and convert_quote_to_invoice, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent onward ('a draft is invisible to the client until you send it with send_quote') and notes valid_until is optional, giving clear context for when to use this versus the follow-up send. It stops short of an explicit when-not/exclusion statement, so not a full 5.

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