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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: the draft is inert until send_estimate, it can run without user OK, and it requires a Cotlet API key with app access. Return format is not described, but that is minor here.

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 and short, but the central constraint ('nothing sent until send_estimate') is stated twice in different words, so not every sentence earns its place. The trailing API-key sentence is useful but appended after the duplicated 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 create tool with no output schema, annotations covering the safety profile, and full schema coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it creates, that it is a no-op until sent, and the auth requirement.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics not in the schema: the total is computed as sum of quantity times unit_price over all lines. That meaningfully clarifies how line_items are interpreted.

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 (draft/create) and resource (estimate) with scope (for a customer or prospect), and explicitly positions it against the sibling send_estimate. An agent can distinguish it from yardbook_send_estimate without opening either 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?

Explicitly names the alternative (send_estimate) and the condition that selects it: nothing is sent until that call. It also clarifies the draft requires no user confirmation, giving clear when-to-use guidance.

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