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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's field enumeration largely restates what the output schema already conveys. The only genuine behavioral addition is the 'call before respond_to_quote' sequencing, which is modest given no auth, rate-limit, or failure-mode disclosure.

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. The resource and its contents come first, and the sequencing instruction closes the sentence as the actionable takeaway. Every clause 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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with a full output schema, the definition covers purpose, contents, and call timing completely. Return values are already handled by the output schema, and the safety profile by annotations, so nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 already documents itself thoroughly ('The person's kolmo.io/quotes/<id> link, as Kolmo sent it. Never guess one.'). The description's 'the quote Kolmo sent the person' reinforces the parameter's origin but adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond the schema. 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 a specific verb (Read) and a precisely scoped resource (the quote Kolmo sent the person), then enumerates the concrete contents (scope, line items, options, total, payment schedule, expiry, acceptability). It contrasts naturally with list-style siblings and names the related action respond_to_quote, so an agent can route to it without opening the 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 final sentence 'Call before respond_to_quote' is an explicit sequencing condition that names the alternative/downstream tool and the moment that selects this one. Nothing is left to inference about when this tool belongs in the flow.

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