List estimates

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's job is to add operational detail — and it does, disclosing that detail="full" expands into line items, deposit payments and acceptance history, and that full results page at a maximum of 25. That page cap is non-obvious and not derivable from the schema, which advertises pageSize up to 100.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and with zero filler. The trailing parenthetical "(pages of at most 25)" is slightly ambiguous about whether it caps pages, items per page, or line items, which costs a point.

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 14-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the return-shape question reasonably well but leaves filtering and sorting behavior entirely to the schema. An agent still has to open the schema to learn that filters exist and how pagination interacts with detail mode.

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 71%, setting a baseline of 3. The description does add real meaning for the detail switch (what "full" actually returns) and the 25-item full-mode page ceiling, but it says nothing about the many filters (status, currency, customerId, estimate date range, amountDue, sort) that an agent must learn from the schema alone.

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 estimates") and disambiguates the vocabulary by equating estimates with quotes, then names the fields surfaced (totals, deposit state, status). It is clearly the collection-level reader versus wave_get_estimate, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for browsing/filtering estimates rather than fetching one by ID or mutating one. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to wave_get_estimate, wave_list_invoices, or the estimate mutation siblings.

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