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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so '(read only)' merely restates structured data. The description adds nothing about pagination behavior, filtering constraints, or result volume that would help an agent call it correctly.

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 tight sentence with the field list front-loaded and the endpoint appended. No wasted words, though the field enumeration arguably belongs in an output schema that does not exist here.

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 13-parameter list tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description omits the filter semantics, pagination expectations, and the default descending sort. It is too thin to let an agent use the tool fully without opening the schema.

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 only 38%, so the description must compensate for the 13 mostly undocumented filter parameters. Instead it lists returned fields rather than explaining filters like status, job_id, customer_id, changed_since, or sorting, leaving most parameters unexplained.

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 quotations') and enumerates the returned fields (number, status, customer, job, lines, totals). The verb 'list' implicitly separates it from the sibling get_quotation, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_quotation or list_invoices, and no mention of prerequisites or filtering context. The endpoint 'GET /quotation/list' is the only routing hint.

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