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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it declares read-only semantics, newest-first ordering, and precise access-control outcomes (non-member shop is refused, inaccessible job returns not-found). It omits how pagination via cursor behaves, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and ordering, then filters, then the access rule. Nothing is wasted and the safety-relevant access behavior is stated plainly rather than 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers scoping, filtering, and failure modes well for a 5-parameter list tool. The one gap is pagination/cursor behavior, which neither the schema nor the description addresses.

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 only 20% (only limit is documented), so the description must compensate; it clarifies the role of job_id, status, and shop_id and that either shop_id or job_id is required. The cursor parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a meaningful hole for a paginated list tool.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Customer quotes in one shop") plus ordering ("newest first"), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not name a sibling like quotes_search or quotes_get to differentiate itself, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

"Send shop_id or job_id" gives a clear invocation precondition, and implicit guidance is that this is the listing path for a shop or job scope. However, it never says when to prefer quotes_search or quotes_get instead, so the alternative-selection guidance is only implied.

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