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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile needs no repetition. The description adds real value beyond them by enumerating the returned statuses (received, acknowledged, quoted, closed), the timestamps, reply-by time, history and firm quote — important since there is no output 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?

Two sentences plus an example, with purpose front-loaded and return contents following naturally. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers both the required input shape (with example) and the full set of returned fields, so an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the response.

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 100% and the schema already defines the reference format, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a worked example ('{"reference":"Q-ABC123"}'), giving the agent a ready-to-adapt invocation, which lifts it above baseline.

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 ('Check the status of a custom quote request or order by its reference') and scopes it to a single lookup. An agent can tell it apart from request_quote or quote_list without opening any 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 description makes clear this is the lookup path keyed on a reference and includes a concrete example input. It does not explicitly say when-not to use it or name sibling alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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