list_quotes

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

With no annotations, the description must convey safety and behavior. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but no additional behavioral traits are disclosed (e.g., default sort order, pagination behavior beyond schema defaults). It is minimally sufficient but not rich.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences communicate the action and key filters without any fluff. Every word adds value, and it is well-suited for quick comprehension.

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 tool, the description plus schema covers the essential facts: what it lists, filter capabilities, and pagination parameters. The lack of an output schema is not critical here, as returning a list of quotes is obvious from the name, but it does not describe the response structure explicitly. Overall, it is adequate with minor gaps.

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?

All four parameters are already described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description mentions 'status or client' which simply echoes the schema's status and client_id parameters, adding no new semantic detail beyond what is already structured.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'quotes/proposals', clearly distinguishing it from single-quote retrieval (e.g., get_quote) and other list tools. It also states the primary filtering dimensions, further clarifying its scope.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_quote or list_invoices. The description implies usage for listing quotes but does not mention exclusions or alternative scenarios, leaving the agent to infer from sibling tool names.

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