List quotes

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

With annotations already marking the operation as read-only and idempotent, the description adds meaningful extra context: the data returned includes approval state and raw metadata rows, and quote approval is intentionally unsupported. This goes beyond the structured hints without contradicting them.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value: one describes the output contents and one clarifies the read-only boundary. No filler or redundancy is present.

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 simple list operation with one optional parameter, the description covers what the tool returns and its read-only nature. There is no output schema, but the field-level summary sufficiently informs an agent about the result shape; pagination or ordering details are not essential here.

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%, and the only parameter, hub, is already described clearly in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb (list) and resource (quotes sent through Jobber), and adds useful output details like number, subject, section, and raw metadata rows. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools, but the resource type is unambiguous.

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?

The description implies the tool is for viewing quotes and explicitly notes that approving a quote is not possible, which is a useful limitation. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over siblings like jobber_list_invoices or jobber_list_appointments.

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