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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful nuance about plan-dependent date handling (Free = current YTD, Pro = any range) and specifies the output dimensions. No contradiction.

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 tight, information-dense sentences with zero filler. Front-loads the report's core output and then adds the plan constraint. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description conveys the main result dimensions (per-currency totals by status, counts, open value, win rate) and the date-range policy. Minor gaps remain around exact win-rate definition and output formatting, but these are acceptable for a read-only report annotated as safe.

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%, so the schema already documents both optional date parameters. The description adds context that date-range filtering depends on the plan, but it doesn't clarify defaults or behavior when from/to are omitted. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 exactly what the tool computes: totals per currency for open, accepted, declined, and expired quotes, along with counts, open value, and win rate. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like quote_list or quote_get, which return individual quote records.

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 it clear that this is an aggregate reporting tool, so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it never explicitly mentions alternatives or says 'use quote_list for raw data.' The Free/Pro date-range policy is useful context but is plan behavior rather than tool-selection guidance.

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