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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so 'Reads only' is largely redundant. The description does add real value by enumerating what comes back — line items with unit price and VAT, totals, dates, state with days left, notes, and the resulting invoice — which tells the agent what it can answer without a follow-up call. It stops short of saying what happens when a client name matches multiple quotes.

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?

One dense sentence that leads with the action and lookup keys, then lists the payload in a natural reading order. Nothing is padded and nothing important is buried.

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 appropriately carries the return-shape burden by naming the fields the caller will receive, including the accepted-to-invoice link. The one unresolved case is ambiguous client-name resolution, which an agent would need to know before calling.

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% and the single parameter is already documented with the Q-number format and client-name alternative, so the description mostly restates it. The added nuance is limited to stressing 'exact' client name matching, which is a modest gain over the 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?

Names a specific verb and resource — 'Return one quote in full' — and states both lookup keys (Q number or exact client name). The emphasis on 'one' implicitly contrasts with the list-style siblings, though it never names quote_list 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?

Clear retrieval context: this is the single-record read, keyed by id or exact client name, and the word 'exact' tells the agent the name match must be precise. No explicit when-not-to-use or sibling handoff (e.g. 'to browse quotes use quote_list') is given.

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