dealdesk.list_quote_shares

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

With annotations absent, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation and reveals that results come as two share-path variants, but says nothing about auth/permission requirements, pagination, or result limits for what could be a growing list.

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, front-loaded with the core action before the explanatory clause. No filler, though the second sentence would earn its place better if it clarified return shape rather than ambiguous field names.

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 2-required-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema read tool, the description gives only the minimum: what it lists and that two share variants exist. Missing are permission assumptions and pagination behavior, which an agent would need before calling it reliably.

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 coverage is 50% (quoteId has no description). The description adds no meaning for either parameter, and instead spends its text on classicPath/experiencePath, which are output fields, not inputs — potentially misleading in a parameter-semantics sense.

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 customer share links for a quote.' An agent can tell this is the read side of the share-link family, distinct from create_quote_share/patch_quote_share. It does not name those siblings, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 create_quote_share or patch_quote_share, nor any prerequisites. The only conditional information is about output variants (classicPath vs experiencePath), not about selecting this tool.

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