pennylane_list_quotes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The one behavioral claim, 'en mode compact par défaut', is also spelled out by the 'detail' parameter in the schema, so the description adds little beyond structured data and says nothing about result volume or rate limits.

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?

Two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler; the second sentence is slightly vague but not wasteful.

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 no explanation, all six optional parameters are fully described in the schema, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description is adequate for a filtered list tool, missing only explicit sibling routing.

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% and every parameter (sort, limit, cursor, detail, status, customer_id) is documented inline. The description only gestures at filters and pagination generically, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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 and resource ('Liste les devis') plus the key traits of the operation (filtres, pagination, mode compact par défaut), which cleanly separates it from the singular sibling pennylane_get_quote. It does not, however, name any sibling explicitly to route the agent.

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?

'Utile pour consulter les devis émis, filtrer par statut ou client' implies when the tool is appropriate, but there is no when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as pennylane_get_quote for a single quote or the changelog_quotes tools.

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