quotes.createSnapshot customer-safe approved request terms into a 24-hour quote. The application must be submitted, internally approved, due-diligence positive, and solvency passed. This does not hold inventory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sessionToken | Yes | ||
| idempotencyKey | Yes | ||
| expectedApplicationVersion | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes | ||
| status | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true (idempotent) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the quote has a 24-hour validity and 'does not hold inventory,' which are important behavioral traits not covered by annotations. No contradictions detected.
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 succinct with two sentences, no redundancy. It front-loads the core action and then adds constraints. Slightly more structure (e.g., bullet points for prerequisites) could improve scannability, but it's efficient as-is.
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 complexity of 3 required parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema details in the description, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameters or return value, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.
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% with 3 parameters. The description fails to explain the purpose or format of sessionToken, idempotencyKey, or expectedApplicationVersion. This leaves the agent without guidance on how to populate these required fields, making it difficult to invoke correctly.
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 title 'Create an approved Elron Club rental quote' and description 'Snapshot customer-safe approved request terms into a 24-hour quote' clearly state the verb (create) and resource (24-hour quote from approved request). It distinguishes from sibling tools like quotes.accept and quotes.get by specifying this is the creation step after approval.
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 explicitly lists prerequisites: 'The application must be submitted, internally approved, due-diligence positive, and solvency passed.' This provides clear context on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it nor mention alternative tools, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool is clearly scoped to a distinct action within its domain (applications, viewings, rentals, etc.). Verbs like start, update, submit, create, propose, accept are unambiguous and non-overlapping.
All tools follow a consistent domain_verb pattern in snake_case (e.g., applications.start, rentals.search, viewings.propose_availability). No mixing of styles.
21 tools cover a broad rental lifecycle (discovery, applications, quotes, viewings, payments, contracts). While slightly above the typical 15-tool sweet spot, each tool has a defined purpose and no redundancy.
The lifecycle from rental search to booking confirmation and contract signing is well-covered. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit cancellation or withdrawal tools), but the core flows are complete.