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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it states that numbers are copied and never recomputed, and explains the dual outcome (direct invoice creation vs. returning line items). These details align with the annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false) and add meaningful context about state changes and accuracy guarantees.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then providing a critical behavioral detail. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of schema content. The structure is clean and immediately informative.

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?

The description explains the two possible outcomes (invoice creation or line items) and the crucial accuracy guarantee, which is essential for correct invocation. It does not explicitly cover the allow_expired parameter's behavior, but that is fully described in the schema. Given the tool's moderate complexity and high schema coverage, the description is sufficiently complete, though it could briefly mention the idempotency or lack thereof.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all five parameters. The description adds a general behavioral note ('numbers are copied, never recomputed') but does not enrich any specific parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Mark a quote accepted and turn it into an invoice'), clearly stating the tool's primary function. It also differentiates from siblings like quote_decline and quote_delete by focusing on the acceptance-to-invoice transformation, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool (to accept a quote and produce an invoice) and clarifies the conditional behavior based on the invoice store's presence. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, though the conditional logic provides practical guidance.

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