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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's 'Read only' is redundant, but it adds genuine value by disclosing the auth model: a signed-in Printdash account is required and an unauthenticated call triggers a sign-in prompt on printdash.io. That is behavior an agent cannot infer from the schema and would otherwise be surprised by mid-workflow. It stops short of describing error behavior for invalid or missing quote numbers.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the field inventory, then the auth constraint — a sensible ordering with no filler. The mid-sentence field enumeration is dense and largely duplicates what the output schema already declares, which costs it a point.

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-record read tool with annotations and an output schema, the essentials are covered, and the auth caveat is the most valuable addition. But the description spends most of its length restating return fields the output schema already owns, while omitting what happens on a bad or unknown quote number — the one failure mode an agent actually needs to plan around.

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 that it accepts a quote number or the quote id from its link. The description's 'by its quote number' actually narrows the schema's stated flexibility rather than extending it, so it adds no semantics beyond the structured field — baseline 3 applies.

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 resource and scope — 'One saved quote by its quote number' — which distinguishes it from the bulk list_quotes sibling by cardinality and key. It then enumerates the contents of the payload (status, lines, subtotal, delivery, total, expiry, share link, convertibility, page link), leaving no ambiguity about what a caller gets back.

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 implied rather than stated: 'one saved quote by its quote number' signals a single-record fetch that contrasts with list_quotes, and the sign-in requirement is framed as a precondition. However, no alternative is named explicitly (list_quotes, get_quote_request, get_order) and there is no when-not guidance or note about what happens if the quote number is unknown.

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