dealdesk.list_quotes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose pagination behavior (despite a limit param), default ordering, what the response contains, or the project-scoping/auth implication noted only in the schema's projectId description.

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; the resource and its filters come first.

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 list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition is adequate but thin: it omits pagination/default-limit semantics and ordering, which an agent needs to paginate or bound results correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions the status and search filters already documented in the schema, and adds nothing for the undocumented limit parameter or the projectId constraint.

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?

Specific verb (List) + resource (quotes) + explicit scope (for a project), so an agent knows this returns a collection rather than a single quote. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_quote or list_quote_shares, keeping it 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?

"Optionally filtered by status or search text" implies the filtering use case, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over get_quote/get_quote_summary, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. Usage must be inferred.

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