review_abandoned_quote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal the observable consequence of the mutation (avoiding duplicate customer contact) and the status it sets, but says nothing about permissions/auth, reversibility, idempotency, or the response, which matters for a write operation.

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 that states the action first and the rationale second, with no wasted words. It is terse rather than padded; only the slight redundancy of "acknowledge followup" trims it from a 5.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool this is close to complete on the 'what', but as an unannotated mutation it omits what state the quote must be in and what the agent gets back, leaving minor gaps an agent might need before calling.

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 coverage is 100% and the sole quoteId parameter is already documented as the lead's numeric identifier, so the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Mark... as reviewed/reminded") with a specific resource ("abandoned quote lead"), and the goal clause distinguishes it from the adjacent list_abandoned_quotes sibling. The only fuzzy point is the dual state "reviewed/reminded," which leaves the exact state transition slightly ambiguous.

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?

There is an implied purpose ("acknowledge followup and avoid duplicate customer contact"), which suggests why an agent would call it, but no explicit when-to-use condition, no prerequisites, and no reference to siblings like list_abandoned_quotes for locating a lead to review.

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