List quotes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, but the description adds non-obvious value: the explicit statement that approving a quote is impossible via this server, and a prompt-injection warning that the returned text is third-party-authored and must be treated as data, never instructions. That is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the capability exclusion, then the security caveat. No filler; each sentence carries a distinct payload.

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 correctly compensates by describing the shape of the returned data (number, subject, section, raw metadata rows) and adds a trust/safety caveat. Nothing needed to call this tool safely is missing.

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?

The single hub parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including the 'omit when only one is configured' rule, so the description adds nothing about parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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?

Names a specific resource (quotes a provider has sent through Jobber) and enumerates the returned fields (number, subject, section/approval state, raw metadata rows). It is trivially distinguishable from the sibling list tools (invoices, work requests, appointments) without opening a schema.

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 scopes the tool's role: it is a read-only listing and approving a quote is not possible through this server, which pre-empts a common misuse. It does not, however, say when to prefer this tool over siblings like jobber_read_page or mention the hub-omission condition.

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