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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the sparse annotations: pending draft and sent deltas are kept apart, the value is net of VAT, and a reference with no change order is refused. It does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, but the content strongly implies a non-mutating value lookup.

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?

Three short sentences pack in the resource, the value components, VAT treatment, and an error condition without any filler. The structure is front-loaded with the core definition followed by refinements.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential output semantics, VAT handling, and a key error case. It could be more explicit about the return shape or currency, but nothing critical is missing for a competent agent to call it correctly.

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 reference parameter is already well documented with format and examples. The description contributes little beyond confirming the input is a quote or work order, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource (one quote or work order) and the computed output (running value with original, approved deltas, and current value). It is specific enough to distinguish this from change-order CRUD siblings, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not name sibling exclusions.

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 intended use is implied: use this tool when you need the running value of a quote or work order. However, it does not state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as change_order_get or change_order_list, leaving routing partly to inference.

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