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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: results are ordered newest first, state is computed against today's date, and a lapsed quote surfaces as expired rather than a stale stored value. It stops short of noting result-size or paging behavior for an unfiltered call.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the ordering and returned-field inventory front-loaded ahead of the computed-state caveat. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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 present, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows what to expect without one. The only shortfall is that it says nothing about result volume or whether the list is bounded, which matters for a call with no required parameters.

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 all four parameters (from, to, state, client) are already documented with formats and an enum explanation, which sets the baseline at 3. The description reinforces the date-range and state semantics but adds no new parameter-level meaning such as default date span or how missing filters behave.

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?

"List quotes newest first" names a specific verb and resource, and the sentence continues into the exact fields returned, so the tool's job is unambiguous. An agent can distinguish it from quote_get (single quote retrieval) purely from this text.

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: the word "List" plus the newest-first ordering signal a browse/overview operation, while quote_get is the obvious single-record counterpart. There is no explicit "use this instead of X" or when-not guidance, and no mention of how the filters interact for narrow lookups.

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