List quotes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that: it does not state the default result set (active records only), that 'all' expands to archived/deleted, or how results are ordered/paged — all of which materially affect what the agent receives.

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 no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification for a five-parameter 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?

With a fully documented schema and a read-only annotation, the essentials are covered, and no output schema exists to explain. Still, for a paginated list tool the description omits default-result semantics and pagination guidance that an agent would benefit from.

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 every parameter (page, sort, filter, status, per_page) is already documented with defaults and caps. The description's 'optional search' loosely maps to 'filter' but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema; 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 ('List quotes') plus a hint at filtering ('optional search'), which is enough to distinguish it from in_get_quote in practice. It stops short of naming siblings or scope (e.g., whether quotes are scoped by client/workspace), so full differentiation is left implicit.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus in_get_quote for a single record, and no mention of the default active-only filter behavior or pagination expectations. The agent must infer all selection logic from the tool name and schema.

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