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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-open-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that by disclosing plan-based scoping limits — Free is constrained to year-to-date while Pro unlocks arbitrary ranges — which affects how results must be interpreted.

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 with no filler. The output contents are front-loaded and the tier/range caveat follows, so an agent gets the primary purpose before the conditional detail.

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 carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so adequately by listing the metric categories. A minor gap remains around edge behavior — what an empty result or missing currency grouping looks like — but nothing that would cause a misinvocation.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds non-obvious meaning: from/to only actually apply on the Pro tier, which the schema descriptions (merely YYYY-MM-DD format) do not convey. This is a meaningful clarification about parameter effect rather than a restatement.

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 aggregation function and enumerates exactly what is produced: per-currency totals for open/accepted/declined/expired quotes, plus counts, open value, and win rate. This is clearly a reporting tool, distinguishable from sibling data-fetching tools like quote_get or quote_list without opening a schema.

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 gives a concrete condition governing use: the current calendar year to date on Free versus any date range on Pro, which tells an agent when the from/to params are meaningful. It stops short of explicitly routing to siblings such as quote_list when individual records rather than aggregates are needed.

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