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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the description's remaining burden is light. It adds the paginated endpoint path (GET /SalesQuotes/{page}), signaling pagination exists, but says nothing about page-size defaults (only the schema does), rate limits, or response shape.

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 tool's purpose and filters before the endpoint detail; nothing is padded. The trailing 'Unleashed: GET /SalesQuotes/{page}' is marginally redundant but does convey the pagination mechanism.

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 8 optional, fully documented parameters, the description covers purpose, filter dimensions, and pagination. It is nearly complete; it does not explain pagination limits or result ordering, but with no output schema and a strong schema, this is a minor gap.

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 every parameter is already documented in structured form, and per the rubric the baseline is 3. The description's filter enumeration maps cleanly onto the parameters but adds no syntax, format, or precedence detail beyond what the schema provides (e.g., the quoteNumber override is only in the schema).

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?

The description states a specific verb (List) and resource (sales quotes) and enumerates the filter axes (status, customer, quote number, date range). It is clear against siblings but never explicitly differentiates itself from the other list tools such as unleashed_list_sales_orders or unleashed_list_invoices, relying on the resource noun alone.

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?

Usage is implied by the filter list, which tells the agent what kinds of queries this tool serves, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no routing guidance versus sibling list/read tools. It is the minimum viable level of guidance.

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