pennylane_list_quote_lines

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the notion that the list is scoped to a single specific quote; it says nothing about pagination behavior or ordering. With annotations carrying the behavioral load, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool, though its brevity is close to the minimum that conveys the purpose.

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 read-only, paginated list tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the definition supplies enough for correct invocation: the resource, the scoping by quote, and the required ID. Sibling differentiation (lines vs. sections) is the only meaningful gap.

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%: limit, cursor, and quote_id are all documented in the schema with defaults and bounds. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 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?

States a specific verb ('Liste') and resource ('lignes/articles d'un devis'), so an agent immediately knows it returns the line items of a quote rather than the quote itself. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely related sibling pennylane_list_quote_sections (sections vs. lines), so it falls short of 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?

The phrase 'd'un devis spécifique' implies you must already have a quote ID, giving a basic usage context. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, no mention of alternatives like list_quote_sections or get_quote, and no prerequisites stated.

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