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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the burden and does well: it declares 'Read only', explains that it matches both job summary and line items, discloses the result ordering (word-match count, then signed, then newest), and warns that prices are visible only to price-permitted users. It does not address result volume or pagination behavior beyond the schema's limit field.

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 core action, then matching behavior, then ordering, then a permissions caveat. No filler and every sentence adds information.

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 ranking and permission behavior well. However, for a five-parameter search tool with 0% schema coverage, the absence of any guidance on status filtering, limit, exclude_job_id, and shop_id leaves real gaps.

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 0%, so the description must explain all five parameters. It meaningfully explains q (scope words matched against summary and line items) but says nothing about shop_id semantics, the status enum values, limit, or exclude_job_id — four of five parameters remain undocumented anywhere.

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 and resource ('Search a shop's past quotes') and narrows the mechanism ('by scope words'), with an example query. An agent can distinguish this from quotes_list or search_global without opening a schema.

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 query implies the intended use case (find past quotes by job keywords), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no mention of the sibling searches or list tools it competes with.

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