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 genuine extras: pagination size ('Pages hold up to 50 quotes'), sort order, that statuses mirror what Jobber shows, and an auth requirement (Cotlet API key with app access). The one gap is no mention of cursor-based paging behavior beyond the param.

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 essential verb/resource/fields, and every sentence carries practical information. Minor waste: 'newest first' appears twice ('...sent date, newest first. Lists quotes newest first.'), which is a redundant clause.

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 compensates by naming the returned fields (client, status, total, sent date) and the ordering, and it covers pagination and auth. For a read-only list tool with fully documented params, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 all five parameters are already documented. The description reinforces client and sent-date filtering but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema provides, 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 (lists) and resource (quotes) plus the fields returned (client, status, total, sent date) and ordering (newest first). An agent can immediately distinguish this from jobber_get_quote or jobber_create_quote 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?

Gives clear context for filtering ('Filter by client or by sent date to find quotes that went cold') and enumerates the status values an agent can filter on. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives (e.g., get_quote for a single quote) or explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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