Get estimate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the shape of the payload — totals in dollars, line items grouped by section with their fields — which matters since no output schema exists.

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?

Front-loaded with the core statement, then a dense but purposeful inventory of returned fields. The long parenthetical enumerating line-item fields is justified given there's no output schema, though it reads as a list dump rather than structured prose.

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 does the heavy lifting by describing return contents in detail, plus it links section_id to add_estimate_items for follow-up actions. Missing only edge details such as behavior when estimate_id is invalid or permission requirements.

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% and the single estimate_id parameter is documented as coming 'From list_estimates,' so the description has little left to add. The section_id explanation is about the return payload, not an input parameter, so it doesn't lift this above baseline.

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+resource: fetches a single estimate and enumerates what comes back (customer, dates, terms, totals, line items). The singular framing implicitly contrasts with list_estimates, but it never names that sibling as the way to discover IDs the way a top-tier definition would.

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 infers this is the detail-fetch for one estimate. The one explicit routing hint ('section_id is what add_estimate_items takes') gives a useful workflow link, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over list_estimates or update_estimate.

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