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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does surface non-obvious behavior: only approved lines are included, line attribution is set to the worker, and the produced entity is an unsent draft. It does not cover permissions, idempotency (does re-calling create a second quote?), or what happens to rejected lines, which are real gaps for an unannotated mutation.

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 action and followed by the filtering behavior and the hand-off condition; little waste. The phrasing is slightly informal ("entered as the worker's", "decided every line") but nothing is redundant.

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 two-parameter mutating tool with an output schema (so return shape needn't be described) and no annotations, the description covers the trigger condition, inclusion rules, result state, and next step. Only error/failure behavior and repeat-call semantics remain uncovered.

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 50%: tax_rate_id is fully documented in the schema, while draft_id has no schema description and is only obliquely implied by "from a draft." The description adds no syntax, format, or default information beyond what the schema already states, so the mid-range baseline 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?

"Make the quote from a draft" gives a concrete verb+resource+source, and the follow-on clause clarifies that the output is itself still a draft rather than a sent quote. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from neighbours like quotes_draft, quotes_create, or quotes_revise, so an agent must infer the boundary, but the conversion semantics are clear.

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 states a precondition ("once the worker decided every line") and an explicit hand-off rule ("send it with quotes.send only when the worker says so"), which effectively tells the agent both when to call this and what not to do afterward. What's missing is guidance on the ordering relative to quotes_decideDraftLine or what to do if lines remain undecided.

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