dealdesk.list_quotes

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails to. It never states that this is a read-only operation, says nothing about default or maximum page size behavior despite the limit parameter, and does not describe ordering or what a result row contains.

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 tightly written sentence that front-loads the resource and then the modifier. Nothing is repeated or padded, and there is no filler to remove.

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 four-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, an agent still lacks pagination semantics (default limit, truncation), result ordering, and confirmation that the call is side-effect free. The authorisation caveat for projectId survives only in the schema, not the description, so the definition is adequate but incomplete.

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 75%, with inline descriptions for q, status, and projectId (including the important single-project authorisation nuance), so the baseline is 3. The description merely restates the status and search filters already documented in the schema and adds nothing for limit or projectId.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('List quotes') plus the scoping dimension ('for a project'), which cleanly separates it from get_quote, create_quote, and the render_* siblings. It stops short of naming a sibling to differentiate from, so it does not reach 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 'optionally filtered by status or search text' implies when the filters are worth using, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not condition, and no pointer to alternatives such as get_quote for a single quote or get_quote_summary for aggregates.

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