cintra-quote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states 'Returns...' implying a read-only operation with no side effects, but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a simple read tool this is borderline adequate but lacks explicit safety guarantees.

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?

Single sentence conveying exactly what is returned. No fluff, front-loaded with key terms.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must cover return value. It enumerates three types of information (supply categories, service area, quote endpoints), which is sufficient for an agent to understand the scope. However, details on data format or structure are missing, which a schema would provide.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. Baseline is 4 with no param info needed. The description adds no param details because none exist.

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 tool returns Cintra's supported supply categories, service area, and official quote endpoints. The verb 'returns' and resource 'supplier capabilities' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like prepare_quote_request, which deal with quote creation rather than capability lookup.

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 discovering available capabilities before preparing a quote, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings. Given the sibling context, the purpose is clear enough for an agent to decide, but explicit guidance would improve score.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool normalizes up to 500 lines, does not submit or purchase, and returns a review link. This is clear behavioral context, though it could mention whether any state changes or side effects occur beyond returning a link.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core action and limit, the second clarifies what it does not do. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

With 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context: what the tool does, its limit, and its non-actions. It could mention the format of the review link or next steps, but given the simplicity, it is adequate.

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 50% (lines parameter has detailed schema but context less so). The tool description adds value by mentioning the 500-line limit and the normalization purpose, which gives context for the lines parameter. It does not explain the context parameter further, but the schema already has a description for it.

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 it normalizes BOM lines into Cintra's quote-ready format and returns a review link, with specific verb 'normalizes' and resource 'BOM lines'. It explicitly differentiates from submission and purchase, and the sibling tool 'submit_quote_request' confirms this distinction.

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 says 'This does not submit, purchase, reserve inventory, or create a binding quote,' which tells the agent it is a preparatory step. It implies use before submit_quote_request, but does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use scenarios beyond the negation.

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

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully bears the burden. It discloses that the submission is non-binding, requires explicit confirmation, and that no order or price guarantee is implied. This is good behavioral context, though it could mention potential responses.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence gives the action and conditions, the second clarifies the non-binding nature. No redundant or extraneous information.

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 (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It fails to mention the human-review aspect from the title, what the response will be, or the role of buyer_email. More context would improve completeness.

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?

With only 13% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate. It provides no additional meaning for the parameters beyond what the minimal schema descriptions offer. The 8 parameters are not explained in the description.

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 it is for submitting a non-binding RFQ, and the title adds 'human-reviewed Cintra quote'. It distinguishes from siblings like prepare_quote_request and validate_bom as the final submission step.

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 specifies conditions: only when production submission is enabled and user confirms. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like prepare_quote_request or validate_bom.

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

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

Given no annotations, the description discloses it does not price or submit, clarifying it is a validation-only tool. It does not describe side effects or auth needs, but for a simple validation tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 succinct sentences, front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words; each sentence adds unique value.

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?

While the tool is simple, the description does not specify the output format (e.g., returns validation errors or boolean). For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should clarify what the agent should expect as a result.

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?

The single parameter 'lines' has a rich schema with descriptions for each property, covering over 80% of schema description coverage. The description adds no further detail on parameters, so baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Checks' and the resource 'quote lines', specifying it looks for missing identifiers and ambiguous substitution instructions. The title adds 'before quoting', distinguishing it from siblings like submit_quote_request.

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 before quoting but does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings. No alternatives or when-not-to-use are mentioned, relying on the title and sibling names for context.

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