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

Annotations only declare a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation; the description adds the state transition (DRAFT to sent), the no-email side effect, and the return value (quote number). It omits prerequisite/error behavior if the quote is not in DRAFT, but the key behavioral traits are disclosed.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the decisive distinction (no email sent) front-loaded ahead of the return value.

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 simple one-parameter state-flip with no output schema, the description covers what it does, the key caveat, and the return value. It could add the DRAFT prerequisite and error behavior, but nothing essential to calling it 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 0% and the description never explains quote_id (what kind of identifier it is, where to obtain it). With one undocumented required parameter, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap, leaving only the self-evident parameter name.

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 (move a DRAFT quote to sent) and explicitly separates itself from send_quote by noting the tool does not email the quote. An agent can pick it out from the large quote/invoice sibling set without opening a 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?

The parenthetical '(you sent it yourself)' gives a clear condition for choosing this over send_quote. It does not state exclusion cases (e.g., what to do if the quote is already sent or not a draft), but the core when-to-use is present.

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