Get quotes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that results are grouped by status and that filters are optional and server-side, but it does not mention authentication requirements, read-only safety, pagination behavior, or result ordering. The core behavior is implied but not fully transparent.

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 three tight sentences: it front-loads the return shape and grouping, then gives the usage scenario, then lists filters. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does a good job explaining the return fields and the grouping behavior. It omits details about pagination (cursor/limit) and safety/permissions, but those are either covered by the schema or adequately implied for a read-only retrieval tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description restates the status enum options and client_id filter but adds no syntax, format, or behavioral details beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the specific resource (quote pipeline) and the grouping behavior (grouped by status) along with the fields returned (quote number, client, total, job). It does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like get_unpaid_invoices or search_jobs, but the resource is clear enough to distinguish it in practice.

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 gives a concrete usage scenario: 'Use for pipeline questions like "which quotes are awaiting a response?"'. This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not state when to prefer alternatives or any exclusions.

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