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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only — no state changes.' It adds value by disclosing the authentication requirement and the status/count information returned. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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, front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by a critical read-only/authentication note. Every word earns its place and there is no redundancy with the schema. The structure is ideal for quick agent parsing.

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?

With no output schema, the description reasonably conveys the main return content: quote requests with statuses and quote-response counts. It also covers authentication and read-only behavior. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning pagination/sorting defaults, but the schema already documents those parameter boundaries.

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 for the five parameters. It does partially by enumerating the status values and noting status-related output, but it does not explain limit, offset, sort_by, or sort_order semantics. The description adds little meaning beyond the schema's enums and property names.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('authenticated user's quote requests'), with explicit scoping. It also clarifies the data included (status, quote-response counts), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_inbound_requests. The title reinforces the intent, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clearly establishes the context: this lists the authenticated user's own quote requests. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the 'my'/'authenticated user's' framing inherently differentiates it from list_inbound_requests. The read-only note also implies this is for viewing, not modifying.

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