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

Beyond the annotations (which only say it isn't read-only and is open-world), the description discloses the concrete state transition, that re-sending repeats the message, the external-reach warning, the per-call confirmation default, and the API-key requirement. This is rich side-effect and permission context an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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 the operational warnings (confirmation, external reach, API key) are placed at the end where they belong. Mild redundancy between the opening sentence and 'Sends the quote to the client by email or text message with your message', but nothing is wasted overall.

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?

No output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a send action, the description covers the state change, external recipient, confirmation requirement, and auth scope, which is everything an agent needs to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so channel, message, and quote_id are already documented in the schema. The description restates 'by email or text' and 'with your message' but adds no syntax, format, or default detail beyond what the schema provides. 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 ('Send a quote to the client') plus the two channels and the re-send variant. An agent can distinguish this from jobber_create_quote, jobber_send_invoice, and jobber_convert_quote_to_job without opening any 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?

Explains the context in which it applies (Draft quote -> Awaiting Response, client approval in client hub) and covers the re-send case explicitly. It does not name a sibling alternative or a when-not condition, but the applicable state is clear.

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