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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), but the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: results are newest-first, pages cap at 100 orders, and a Cotlet API key with app access is required. It also clarifies the quotation-vs-sales-order lifecycle semantic.

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 purpose and efficient overall, but the first sentence ('with customer, status and total') is partially restated in the second ('order number, customer, status and untaxed and total amounts'), a small redundancy.

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 read-only list tool, the description covers returns, sort order, page size, and auth requirements, and no output schema exists to carry that burden. Pagination mechanics (offset) are left to the schema, but nothing critical is missing.

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 four parameters (limit, offset, status enum, contact_id) are already documented in structured form. The description lists returned fields rather than parameter semantics, adding little beyond the schema - 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?

Names a specific verb (list) and resource (quotations and sales orders), and spells out the fields returned (order number, customer, status, amounts). It is clearly distinct from odoo_create_sales_order and odoo_list_invoices in the sibling set.

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?

Usage is implied by the description's scope: an agent can infer this is the tool for enumerating orders filtered by status or contact. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer the invoice or contact list tools, and no stated exclusions.

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