list_abandoned_quotes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of the returned data (contact details, item counts, recovery links), which is genuinely useful context for a read operation, but it says nothing about permissions, whether the data is sensitive/PII, or pagination behavior beyond the schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler that conveys purpose and return content at once.

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 two-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description usefully previews the returned fields, which compensates for the missing output schema. Only the absence of any read-only/permission framing keeps it short of complete.

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?

Both parameters (page, limit) are fully documented in the schema at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no pagination or filtering semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'List unfinished 3D print quote checkouts,' with concrete scope (customer contact details, item counts, recovery links). It is clearly distinguishable from generic siblings like list_orders, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with the nearby review_abandoned_quote tool.

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 mention of 'recovery links' implies the abandoned-cart recovery use case, so intended usage can be inferred. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the related review_abandoned_quote alternative, leaving the agent to guess.

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