List quotations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it wraps Quotations.getList / getListCount and enumerates statuses, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, default status, or return shape.

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 three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose, then gives the implementation wrapper and the valid statuses, making it easy to scan.

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, safe list operation with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the essential calling pattern. The main omissions are pagination/return details, but page is self-describing and optional, and annotations already carry the read-only safety context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for client_id ('for a client or across all clients') and status ('by status' plus the status list), but the page parameter is left to its name and schema default. The status enumeration repeats what the schema already provides.

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 identifies the resource as quotations/estimates and communicates the two main axes: client scope ('for a client or across all clients') and status filtering. It does not explicitly name the sibling get_quotation, but the plural list framing and optional client scope make the distinction reasonably clear.

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 implies when to use the tool: when listing quotations for one client or all clients, filtered by status. It does not state when to prefer get_quotation or another sibling, nor does it give explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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