List quotes

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds ordering behavior, default status behavior, the definition of 'expired', and the cursor round-trip ('Pass next_cursor back as cursor') — real behavioral context rather than restatement.

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 what it returns and how it sorts, then defaults, then pagination — a sensible order. The opening fragment ('Quotes with customer, total, quote date, expiry date and status.') largely duplicates the following sentence's field list, which is the only real waste.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does so by listing fields and ordering, and it explains pagination. It's nearly complete for a filtered read tool; the relationship between limit/paging behavior and the default result set is left to the schema.

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 80%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: the default status is awaiting_acceptance, 'expired' is a subset of awaiting_acceptance past expiry, 'since' filters by quote date, and cursor is the previous next_cursor. The remaining gap is limit/search behavior, which the schema covers.

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 ('Lists quotes') and immediately enumerates the returned fields (customer, linked job, total with tax, quote/expiry/accepted dates, status) plus sort order (newest quote date first). That is enough to distinguish it from create_quote, send_quote and create_invoice_from_quote 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?

It explains the default filter ('quotes awaiting acceptance'), clarifies what 'expired' means, and gives a concrete recipe: 'use status accepted with since to find what was won in a period'. It offers no explicit when-not-to-use or sibling routing, so it falls short of the top band, but the usage context is clear.

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