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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reaffirms 'Read-only' consistently. Beyond that, it adds crucial behavioral context: amounts are exactly as stored in Xero (never convert or assume match with Invio) and status SENT does not prove actual delivery. This goes well beyond the structured annotations and prevents misuse.

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?

The description is concise, with every sentence serving a purpose. It front-loads the primary function and return contents, then follows with crucial usage caveats and data interpretation notes. No redundant or filler content.

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 retrieval tool with one required parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering the read-only nature, the description covers all essential aspects: what is returned, how to obtain the correct quoteId, how to treat currency/amounts, and how to interpret status. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

The schema provides a description only for the 'organisation' parameter, leaving quoteId without one (50% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that quoteId must be a Xero GUID from list_xero_quotes, not an Invio id, adding essential semantic meaning beyond the schema's format hint. It does not add details for organisation, but the schema already covers it adequately.

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 ('get') and resource ('Xero quote') and enumerates the returned contents (line items, title, summary, terms). It clearly distinguishes itself from list_xero_quotes by focusing on a single quote's full detail, and is easily differentiated from sibling get_* tools by naming the specific entity.

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?

It explicitly instructs that quoteId must be a Xero QuoteID from list_xero_quotes and never an Invio id, giving a clear prerequisite and source. It also warns about currency/amount assumptions and the meaning of status SENT, which are important for correct usage. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for other purposes, but the context is clear enough.

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