List quotes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds a specific behavioral constraint ('approving a quote is not possible') and clarifies the output fields ('number, subject, section (approval state) and the raw metadata rows'), which goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No fluff or redundancy.

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 compensates by naming the returned fields and the read-only limitation. The tool is simple (one optional parameter), and the description covers its main behavior and constraints. Minor gaps like pagination or hub-specific behavior are not addressed, but the annotations (openWorldHint) and schema fill some gaps.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single optional 'hub' parameter, so the schema fully explains the parameter. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool lists quotes a provider has sent through Jobber, naming specific fields (number, subject, section/approval state) and raw metadata rows. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools (appointments, invoices, work requests) by explicitly focusing on quotes.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The tool's purpose is implied by the name and description (use for listing quotes), and the read-only caveat warns against expecting approval functionality. However, alternatives are not mentioned, so guidance is only implicit.

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