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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the draft→Sent state transition, the irreversibility of that transition, that a sent quote does not touch the client balance, what it returns (who received it), the per-call confirmation default, and the API-key requirement. This is exactly the behavior an agent needs for a mutation on an external service.

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 the core action and otherwise dense with useful constraints. Minor redundancy between "Email a quote to the contacts that receive it" and "Emails the quote to the contacts ticked to receive it," but every sentence carries information.

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 2-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the return value, the state change and its irreversibility, side-effect scope (no balance impact), confirmation behavior, and auth. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 quote_number and company are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail for either parameter beyond the schema, 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+resource ("Email a quote") and clarifies the outcome (contacts ticked to receive it get it). An agent can distinguish this from send_invoice, create_quote, and convert_quote_to_invoice without opening a schema.

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?

Clear usage context including a when-not guard (a quote already emailed or marked sent cannot return to draft) and an explicit human-confirmation instruction that applies when the tool reaches other people. It does not name sibling alternatives (e.g. send_invoice vs send_quote), so it stops short of a 5.

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