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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value: it returns the ID and totals, it is not sent or confirmed (side effects of the mutation are bounded), and it requires a Cotlet API key with access to the app.

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 return value, then the state constraint and auth requirement. The 'reaches nobody and does not wait for your OK' phrasing is slightly redundant next to 'not sent and not confirmed'.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by stating the return value (ID and totals). Auth requirements and the non-committing nature of the operation are covered, leaving little an agent needs missing for a 3-parameter creation tool.

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 three parameters (contact_id, lines, reference) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, 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 quotation for a customer in the Sales app') and scopes it to the Sales app. It also implicitly separates itself from send/post siblings by noting that the record stays a quotation and is neither sent nor confirmed.

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 of use: this creates an unsent, unconfirmed draft quotation, and confirming/invoicing happen later in Odoo. It stops short of naming the specific sibling tools (e.g. odoo_post_invoice, odoo_send_invoice) that handle the next step.

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