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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value on top by enumerating the returned fields (line items, total, deposit, message) in the absence of an output schema, and notes the Cotlet API key/auth requirement.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the first sentence ('One quote with line items, deposit, client message and status') is largely restated by the second sentence ('Returns the line items, the total, any required deposit and the message'). The redundancy costs a point.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the agent gets back, when to call it, and the auth requirement. Only the routing among the quote siblings could be more explicit.

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 one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents quote_id and its provenance ('Quote ID from list_quotes'). The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 (retrieve one quote) and enumerates the payload contents (line items, deposit, client message, status). 'One quote' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling jobber_list_quotes, though it never names that alternative 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?

Gives concrete usage context: 'Use it before converting or resending so the agent knows what the client was offered,' which ties the call to the sibling workflows jobber_convert_quote_to_job and jobber_send_quote. It stops short of explicitly naming those tools as alternatives or stating when not to use it.

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