List estimates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe repeated read operation. The description adds no behavioral details beyond annotations, such as return format, ordering, or pagination behavior. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is the minimum viable score.

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 sentences with no waste. The primary action is front-loaded and the usage scenarios are compact. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose and typical use cases adequately. It does not mention return shape or pagination, but no output schema exists and the parameter schema already documents filtering behavior, so the gap is minor.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters, including enum values and the dateFrom default behavior. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Fetch estimates/quotes.' This distinguishes it from creation siblings like create_estimate and from other resource-based siblings (jobs, invoices, customers). However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with alternatives, so it stops short of the clearest possible differentiation.

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?

Provides concrete use contexts: pending proposals, conversion tracking, estimate follow-ups. It tells the agent when this tool is relevant but does not specify when not to use it or name an alternative tool for adjacent tasks.

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