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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the response omits line items, paging works by feeding next_offset back as offset, and the underlying call is GET /quote. It does not mention rate limits or result caps, but the added detail is solid.

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?

Purpose and the line-item caveat are front-loaded, and the filter enumeration is compact. It is a single dense block with no wasted sentences, though the filter list slightly crowds out readability compared to a structured breakdown.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by noting the list lacks line items and explaining pagination via next_offset. Combined with the fully documented input schema and the filter-field enumeration, an agent has what it needs; only the return envelope shape is left unspecified.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description exceeds that by enumerating the valid filter fields and spelling out the accepted values for quote_status_str and quote_status_state ('o = open, c = closed'), which the schema does not contain and which the schema explicitly defers to the description for.

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+resource ('List quotes') and immediately defines what a quote is and what the list representation contains ('proposals for a customer or lead; the list has no line items'). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling chargeover_get_quote by pointing to it for line items.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to get_quote when line items are needed, which is a real when-to-use-else decision. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this list over other quote-listing approaches or on scoping expectations (e.g. whether results are account-wide), so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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