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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint:false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the required scope, which is genuinely useful. It doesn't mention cost or size behaviour of the embed/field options, but the schema's parameter descriptions carry the extra-scope caveat.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the required permission. No wasted text.

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?

Covers the core identity (single estimate by id), what is returned in broad terms (rows and amounts) and the required scope. The main gap is the absence of explicit guidance on pagination or how embed/field options affect the response, though the schema partially compensates.

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% and the schema documents id, embed and field with examples, so the description need not repeat them. The description adds nothing beyond what's in the schema, which is appropriate here but not above baseline.

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 ('Get one estimate by id') and scope ('with its rows and amounts'), which distinguishes it from the neighbouring list_estimates and search_estimates tools. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

'by id' implies it is the tool for fetching a known estimate rather than searching, and 'Needs estimates.read' gives a prerequisite. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over sellsy_search_estimates or sellsy_list_estimates.

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