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

The annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent), but the description adds real value the annotations can't: there is no outbound channel by design, and the concrete effect is 'quote.status -> sent'. It stops short of stating whether repeat calls are rejected or what happens on an invalid status.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the action and the key disclaimer, and the effect statement is compact. Slight overlap between 'Mark a quote as sent' and 'This records that it went out' keeps it from being maximally tight.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what changes and what does not happen, and annotations cover the risk profile. Missing are precondition/status requirements and the behavior of repeat invocations given idempotentHint=false.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The quote. An existing quote id.'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the identifier's format or origin, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Mark a quote as sent') and immediately disambiguates the misleading 'send' in the tool name by saying it records status only and does not actually transmit anything. An agent can tell this apart from other quote tools without inspecting 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?

It clarifies the operation's semantics ('records that it went out') but never names an alternative or a precondition, e.g. whether the quote must be in draft status, or how this differs from o2c_accept_quote or o2c_create_quote. The usage is implied rather than stated.

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