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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the read-only, closed-domain profile is covered. The description adds the enumeration of status states (awaiting payment, queued, shipped), but that is return-shape information duplicated by the output schema, and it discloses no permission, freshness, or lookup-failure behavior.

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 compact sentence with the identifier front-loaded and the return facts listed compactly. Slightly dense, but nothing is wasted or buried.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers what it does and what it yields. Only the usage relationship to sibling tools is left implicit, which is a small 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% and the schema already documents quote_id as the tilbud_id from get_print_quote. The description restates 'by quote_id' without adding format, validity, or lookup-scope detail, so the baseline 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 specific verb (look up) and resource (an earlier quote) and enumerates the returned facts: price, expiry, ordered status, and order state. It is distinguishable from get_print_quote and create_order by implication, but never names a sibling 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?

'Look up an earlier quote' and the mention of expired/ordered state imply this is the post-quote status check, and the schema ties quote_id to get_print_quote's tilbud_id. However, no when-to-use condition, prerequisites, or named alternative is stated in the description itself.

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