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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful bits beyond that — the returned payload includes line items, and the underlying endpoint is GET /quotation/details — but says nothing about pagination, error behavior when the identifier is not found, or field completeness.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence plus an endpoint reference; every clause carries information and nothing is padded. Slightly telegraphic phrasing ('One quotation by id...') costs a little readability but not correctness.

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 simple read tool with full schema coverage, complete annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is returned ('with its lines') and how to identify the record. It is nearly complete, missing only edge-case behavior such as not-found handling.

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 enum on `by` plus the `value` constraint are fully documented in the schema itself. The description's mention of 'id, reference or number' merely restates the enum, adding no new format or constraint detail, so the baseline of 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 concrete retrieval action ('One quotation') and resource, plus the identifier options (id/reference/number) and that line items come back. It implicitly contrasts with the plural synchroteam_list_quotations sibling, but never names it, so the differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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 singular 'One quotation ... by id, reference or number' implies use when a single quotation must be fetched rather than enumerated, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no reference to the list/gather alternatives.

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