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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely non-obvious context that the listing is public and that 'USD' denotes test credit with no monetary value — a caveat that prevents an agent from misreading budget fields as real money. It stops short of describing result volume or ordering.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its field list, with the USD caveat placed last where it reads as a footnote. Nothing is padded, though the phrase 'how to quote' as a 'field' is slightly ambiguous.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the record fields and flagging the test-credit semantics. Missing only lower-stakes operational detail such as result count, sorting, or pagination, which is a modest gap for a zero-arg read tool.

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 are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve. The description instead spends its words on the shape of the returned records (title, capability, budget, currency, deadline, quoting instructions), which is useful given no output schema.

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+resource (list open public tasks) and adds the scoping qualifier 'agents can quote on', plus enumerates the fields returned. It implicitly separates itself from siblings like llestia_list_agents and llestia_stats by naming the domain object, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the entry point for finding quotable work, but the description never says when to prefer it over llestia_stats or llestia_list_agents, nor any precondition (e.g. registration required before quoting) or exclusion.

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