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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description's real added value is the API limitation that filtering works only by id — a genuine behavioral constraint absent from the schema. It says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering, or what happens when ids exceed the 100-item cap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the filtering caveat and the upstream-tool pointer. The trailing 'Teamleader: quotations.list.' endpoint note is marginal but harmless; nothing else is padded.

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 read-only list tool with full annotation coverage, no output schema and three well-documented parameters, the description supplies what matters: scope of filtering and source of ids. Pagination is handled by the schema, so no meaningful gap remains for correct invocation.

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 the schema alone sets a baseline of 3. The description goes beyond it by explaining why only 'ids' exists as a filter and where those ids come from, which resolves the most likely agent error (trying to filter by deal).

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 disambiguates the domain term with the alias '(offers)', plus names the payload fields (status, totals, deal). It is clearly distinct from the singular teamleader_get_quotation, though that sibling is never named explicitly.

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?

Gives actionable routing: 'Teamleader filters quotations only by id: to find a deal's quotations, take the ids from teamleader_get_deal.' That tells the agent both the constraint and the correct upstream tool. It does not state when to prefer teamleader_get_quotation for a single record or what to do when ids are unknown for a non-deal context.

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