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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the record lands in Draft status, no one is reached, it 'runs without asking first,' and it requires a Cotlet API key with app access. With readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false already given, this enriches rather than repeats the safety profile.

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 and mostly tight, but the opening two sentences partially restate each other ('Create a draft quote... with line items' / 'Creates a quote in Draft status with the line items you give'). One sentence of the four is redundant.

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 4-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers state (Draft), notification behavior, next-step tool, and auth prerequisites. The one gap is how line_items should be structured, but the schema nominally covers that.

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 the schema already documents client_id, title, message and line_items. The description only echoes 'for a client with line items' without adding format or syntax meaning, 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 and resource ('Create a draft quote'), plus scope ('for a client with line items'). It is cleanly distinguishable from the sibling jobber_send_quote, which it names.

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 frames this as a draft-only operation and routes the agent to the alternative: 'Nothing is sent... Send it with send_quote.' The when-to-use (build a draft) versus when-not (deliver to the client) distinction is unambiguous.

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