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 context beyond that: the pagination model (limit/offset) and the exact return envelope { items, count, limit, offset, next_page_url }, which the annotation does not convey.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose then return shape and filter usage. No filler; each clause carries distinct information.

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 compensates by describing the return envelope and pagination fields. It's nearly complete for a list tool; the only gap is absence of explicit routing to sibling tools.

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% (baseline 3), but the description adds value beyond the schema by naming concrete filter keys (property_id, guest_id) that the schema only refers to generically as "documented query-string filters." That is meaningful guidance the schema omits.

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 and resource ("List quotes") and even pins the underlying API endpoint (GET /v2/quotes), which is unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly contrast with get_quote/create_quote siblings, but the "List" verb distinguishes it adequately.

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 implies this is the read/list operation and tells the caller how to apply filters via params, but it gives no explicit when-to-use versus get_quote or how it differs from list_bookings/list_guests. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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