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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the rest: it discloses that quotes are non-fiscal pre-invoice offers and spells out the exact per-row return shape (id, quote number, issue date, total, status), which is genuinely useful with no output schema. It omits pagination/limit behavior and whether results are ordered, keeping it below 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the identity of the resource, then the filter, then the return shape. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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 two-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description supplies both the domain meaning and the returned fields. The one real gap is that 'limit' and result ordering/pagination are never addressed, which an agent needs to page results reliably.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It covers the 'status' filter conceptually ('Filter by status') but never lists the enum values or explains their meaning, and it says nothing at all about 'limit' (default 20, max 100). Partial compensation only.

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 ('List quotes') and defines the domain term with a clarifying gloss ('presupuestos: non-fiscal offers sent to a customer before invoicing'), which implicitly separates it from list_invoices. It does not name a sibling tool explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Filter by status' implies the intended use case (browse quotes by lifecycle state), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to alternatives such as get_quote_series, get_invoice, or list_invoices. Usage must be inferred.

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