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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: newest-first ordering, the record fields surfaced (total, destination email), and the id handoff to send_estimate. It does not mention result limits or pagination, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the resource and filters, then the ordering, then the payoff (ids for send_estimate). Every clause adds information; nothing is redundant with the title.

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 usefully lists what comes back (total, email, ids). For a two-parameter read tool this is nearly complete, though it never states default behavior with no filters or whether results are capped.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden and does so well for status by enumerating the five valid values (draft, sent, viewed, approved, declined) that are absent from the schema. It leaves 'customer' ambiguous — name vs. id vs. partial match — so the second parameter is only weakly specified.

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?

Specific verb (find) and resource (estimates/proposals), plus the two filter axes, sort order, and returned fields. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like find_invoices, create_estimate, and send_estimate 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 phrase 'Returns ids for send_estimate' implies the intended follow-on workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of what happens when neither filter is supplied, and no named alternative such as find_invoices for the invoice side.

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