volkern_list_cotizaciones

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a list operation with filters, implying it's likely read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't confirm this or address other behaviors like pagination (implied by page/limit parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 4 parameters.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List quotations/quotes') and adds qualifying information ('with optional filters') without unnecessary words. Every element serves a purpose, making it appropriately concise for a listing tool.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters with only 50% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key contextual aspects like return format, pagination behavior, error handling, or how filters interact, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool effectively in a real-world scenario.

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 50% (2 of 4 parameters have descriptions: estado and search). The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'optional filters' but doesn't elaborate on parameter usage, relationships, or examples. It partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions for page and limit, but not sufficiently to elevate the score above baseline.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('quotations/quotes') with the addition of 'with optional filters' which provides context about functionality. It distinguishes this as a listing operation among siblings that include creation, update, and get operations, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like volkern_list_contacts or volkern_list_deals.

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 description mentions 'optional filters' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like volkern_get_cotizacion (for a single quote) or other list tools. There's no indication of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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