list_estimates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The '[tier: readonly-owner]' tag implies the consumer must be an owner with read-only access, but this is vague. It does not disclose pagination behavior, what is returned, whether it returns only estimates owned by the caller, or any rate-limiting or data scoping constraints.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. The '[tier: readonly-owner]' marker is compact. No wasted words, though the date-range mention that doesn't match the schema adds slight confusion.

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 list tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is thin. It should clarify pagination behavior, sorting semantics, the relationship between parameters, and what the response contains. The mismatch between the 'date range' claim and the absence of date parameters is a notable completeness gap. Sibling get_estimate may handle single-record retrieval but this is not cross-referenced.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate, but it only names the filter dimensions (customer, employee, status, date range) without mapping them to specific parameter names or clarifying semantics. Notably, the description mentions a date range filter but there is no start_date/end_date parameter in the schema - a mismatch that could confuse an agent. The schema itself has minimal descriptions (only 'status' has an example).

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 states a clear verb+resource: 'List estimates' with the filters it supports (customer, employee, status, date range). It names the endpoint it maps to. However, it does little to differentiate from its sibling list_* tools, though those siblings cover different resources so the purpose is sufficiently distinct.

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?

The description lists filter capabilities but provides no context on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no pagination guidance, no mention that get_estimate would be used for a single record, and no guidance on typical usage patterns. The '[tier: readonly-owner]' is the only usage-ish hint.

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