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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, destructive mutation, and the description adds real context beyond them: the object stays a draft, totals are computed server-side ('as Tradify does'), tax falls back to the default rate, and expiry comes from a settings value. It does not describe what is returned or whether repeated calls create duplicates, which the non-idempotent hint makes relevant.

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?

The key fact (draft only, nothing sent) is front-loaded, but it is restated verbatim at the end ('The quote stays a draft until send_quote'), and the parenthetical line-item explanation is dense mid-paragraph. The redundancy costs space that could have covered return values.

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 7-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs and defaults well but says nothing about what comes back, leaving the agent unsure whether a quote id is returned for the subsequent send_quote call. That is the one thing an agent needs to chain the draft-to-send workflow.

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 86%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns a step up by explaining pricing provenance (time lines take the price from the customer's price group unless unit_price is given) and the constraint that job_id must belong to the same customer. These are behavioral relationships not expressed in the schema.

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?

Opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Draft quote with line items') and immediately distinguishes the tool from send_quote. The line-item model (misc vs time) is stated up front, so an agent can tell what this tool produces without opening the 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 routes the send step to send_quote ('Nothing is sent until you call send_quote') and names a real limit ('Price list items and kits are not supported yet') that tells the agent when to abandon this path. It stops short of naming alternatives for the unsupported cases or stating prerequisites like permissions.

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