invoiceninja_list_quotes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: related names are auto-resolved (client_name), fields works in JSON format only, and extra_filters accepts column-specific syntax. It does not discuss pagination limits or rate limits, hence not a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, then structured as filtered detail lines, with zero filler. Slight redundancy: the client_status value list is repeated verbatim from the schema, which is a minor waste of tokens.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return burden reasonably: response_format (markdown summary vs json) is explained and the get_quote follow-up is noted. For an 11-parameter list tool it is nearly complete, though it says little about what the markdown summary actually contains.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning the schema lacks: the enumerated client_status values and the full extra_filters key vocabulary (date_range, due_date, created_between, tag_ids, etc.), which the schema itself defers to ('see the tool description').

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 from Invoice Ninja') plus its scope (filtering, sorting, pagination), which cleanly separates it from the sibling list_invoices/list_credits tools without needing either schema opened. It also names the paired read tool (get_quote) for the full record.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use invoiceninja_get_quote with an id from this list for the full record,' which is clear when-to-use-this-vs-sibling guidance. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. vs invoiceninja_search for cross-entity lookups), so it is strong but not complete.

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