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

Read-only and destructive hints already label this as safe. The description goes beyond those by warning that list and get can expose different field sets and that such differences should not be read as create/update failures. This is a useful, non-obvious behavioral distinction.

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 concise sentences with the core action first and the field-difference caveat second. Every sentence carries rationale and there is no repetition of schema or annotations.

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 read-only get-by-id tool, the definition is largely complete: required id and companyName are documented, connectionRef has thorough guidance, and readOnlyHint/destructiveHint cover side effects. A minor gap is that the return shape beyond note/analysis account codes is not described, but no output schema exists and this is not blocking for correct invocation.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, and connectionRef is elaborately explained. The tool description itself adds no material parameter information beyond 'by id,' so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Gets one BRC quote by id') and names an obvious distinguishing behavior: list and get may return different fields. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_quotes.

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 description implies the tool is right when an id is known and that list serves a different purpose, but it never explicitly names a list/quote query alternative or gives when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is clear but inferred rather than stated.

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