mf_list_quotes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering capabilities but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, what the return format is (e.g., paginated list), or any rate limits. For a list tool with 7 parameters, 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 a single, efficient sentence in Japanese that front-loads the core purpose and briefly mentions filtering capabilities. There's no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for a list tool with good schema documentation.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and hints at filtering, but lacks details on authentication, return format, pagination behavior, or error handling. With no output schema, the agent must infer the response structure, making the description incomplete for full contextual understanding.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 7 parameters with descriptions and an enum for 'status'. The description adds minimal value by mentioning partner and date filtering, but doesn't provide additional context beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 verb ('取得します' - retrieve/get) and resource ('見積書一覧' - list of quotes), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes itself from siblings like mf_get_quote (singular) by focusing on listing multiple quotes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from mf_list_billings or other list tools beyond the resource type.

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 usage for filtering by partner and date range ('取引先や期間で絞り込み可能です'), suggesting when to use it for filtered queries. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like mf_list_billings or mf_get_quote, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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