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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior: ordering (newest first), what the default filter actually returns, and the pagination contract ('pass next_cursor back as cursor'). It does not mention the 50/100 limit bounds, but those are in the schema.

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 resource and key filters, which is good, but the first two sentences duplicate the same field list ('customer, total, quote date, expiry date and status' then 'customer, linked job, total (with tax), quote, expiry and accepted dates and status'). Roughly a sentence of redundancy in a short description.

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 the description carries the burden of conveying return shape, and it does enumerate the fields plus ordering and cursor handoff. It omits default page size and what next_cursor looks like, minor gaps for a read-only list endpoint.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns more by disambiguating enum semantics the schema does not ('expired is the ones awaiting acceptance past their expiry date') and by clarifying since as 'dated on or after that day'. It leaves search and limit to the schema, but those are already documented.

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 (lists) and resource (quotes) plus the returned fields and ordering ('newest quote date first'). It is clearly distinguishable from write-side siblings like create_quote, send_quote, or create_invoice_from_quote.

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 that the default is awaiting_acceptance, that expired means awaiting_acceptance past its expiry date, and gives a concrete recipe ('use status accepted with since to find what was won in a period'). It lacks explicit exclusions, but for a list tool the practical filter guidance is the useful part and it is present.

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