get_my_quotations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination (beyond the 'limit' parameter), error conditions, or what the output contains. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by parameter details in a structured format. There's no wasted text, though the formatting (indentation) could be cleaner. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameters well, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., auth needs, error handling). The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but other gaps remain, making it adequate but with clear room for improvement.

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?

The description adds meaningful context for both parameters beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'state' filters by specific states (draft, sent, sale, done, cancel) and 'limit' sets a maximum record count with a default of 20. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail data types or constraints (e.g., whether 'state' is case-sensitive).

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get quotations/orders where the current user is the salesperson.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('quotations/orders') with a clear scope filter ('where the current user is the salesperson'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'get_order_details' or 'search_read', which might also retrieve order-related data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_order_details' (for specific orders) or 'search_read' (for general queries), nor does it specify prerequisites (e.g., authentication status) or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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