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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely useful piece of non-annotation context — 'PMs and admins only' (an authorization requirement) — but says nothing about ordering or how the totals are scoped.

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 that front-loads the resource and status filter, with no filler. It is fragmentary rather than elegantly constructed, but nothing is wasted.

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 three-parameter read-only list with an output-less schema, the description covers what it returns (net/gross amounts plus totals) and who may call it. Only ordering/pagination behavior is left implicit, which is minor.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters including the status enum are already documented in the schema. The description's paraphrase of awaiting_confirmation echoes the schema text rather than adding new meaning.

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+resource ('Quotations by status') and even names what the rows contain (net and gross amounts and totals). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closest sibling, list_invoices, though 'quotations' is naturally distinct.

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?

The example ('the ones sent to a customer and not confirmed yet') implies the primary use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative such as list_invoices or search_customers for narrowing.

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