Follow up on unsigned/pending quotes with escalating nudge messages (up to 3 follow-ups). Pass quoteId for specific quote, or omit to scan all pending quotes past follow-up threshold. Requires Growth+ plan.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| quoteId | No | Specific quote ID to follow up. Omit to auto-scan all pending quotes. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| results | No | ||
| success | No | ||
| followedUp | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: sends escalating nudge messages (up to 3), auto-scans pending quotes if quoteId omitted, and requires a specific plan. Annotations only hint at non-readOnly and non-idempotent; description adds actionable detail.
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?
Two sentences, each packing critical info: first sentence states purpose and limit, second explains parameter usage and requirement. No filler, fully front-loaded.
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?
Covers all essential aspects: action, resource, mode selection, requirement, and nudge limit. Does not describe output format (but output schema exists) or error conditions, but for a tool of this complexity, it's sufficiently 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear property description. The tool description repeats the schema info but adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Clearly states 'Follow up on unsigned/pending quotes' with specific mechanism 'escalating nudge messages (up to 3 follow-ups)'. Distinguishes from siblings like quotes.send or workflows.chase_payment by specifying automated, escalating nudges with a cap.
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?
Explicitly describes when to use (for unsigned/pending quotes) and provides two modes (specific quoteId vs auto-scan all pending). Mentions requirement 'Requires Growth+ plan'. Lacks explicit when-not or comparisons to alternative tools, but context is clear.
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.
Most tools have distinct resource+action naming (e.g., leads.create, jobs.list), but some overlap exists in analytics tools (dashboard, detailed, financials) and workflow automations (process_lead vs google_ads_pipeline). Descriptions clarify purposes, so slight confusion is possible but limited.
All tools follow a consistent `domain.action` pattern (e.g., leads.create, billing.status). No mixing of camelCase or snake_case. Even complex names like lifecycle.assess or scaling.readiness_score adhere to the convention.
95 tools is far beyond typical well-scoped servers (3-15). While the server aims to cover an entire business management platform, this volume is overwhelming for an agent, making selection and memory difficult.
The tool surface is exceptionally comprehensive, covering formation, hiring, compliance, funding, leads, quotes, jobs, invoicing, payments, marketing, analytics, integrations, webhooks, workflows, and more. Almost no obvious gaps in the lifecycle of running a trade business.