List estimates

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: default ordering is newest-first, archived estimates are excluded unless opted in, and the summary fields returned. It does not mention pagination limits or cursor behavior, which the schema carries.

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?

Two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the resource and ordering, followed by filters and the alternative tool. Minor redundancy: 'status, project, customer and total' appears in both the opening line and the field enumeration.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (number, title, status, project, customer, dates, total) and the ordering. Combined with schema-documented limit/cursor, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 50%, so the description compensates by explaining what search covers (title, number, customer), what status/project filters do, and the non-obvious semantics of include_archived (archived items are hidden by default). limit and cursor are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable since cursor is described there.

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 ('Estimates, newest first') plus the returned fields, and explicitly distinguishes itself from get_estimate by noting that get_estimate yields line items. An agent can tell this apart from sibling list_* tools without opening any 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?

Gives concrete selection conditions: filter by project, status, or search; archived rows only appear with include_archived; use get_estimate for line-item detail. It lacks an explicit statement of when NOT to use this tool (e.g., versus list_projects or create_estimate), but the routing guidance to the detail tool is clear.

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