OptiLibra Optical Networking

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

Read-only safety is already covered by readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, so the description earns credit for what annotations cannot say: undocumented figures are not invented, and commercial figures are deferred to quoting. It does not describe behavior for an unknown slug or a product with no documented specs.

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, front-loaded with the verb and the data returned, with no filler. The second sentence is densely packed with three separate constraints, which makes it slightly harder to scan but each clause carries real 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return payload — and it does, naming specs, images and source. Combined with read-only annotations and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 is one parameter with full schema coverage, so the baseline is 3; the description lifts it by stating the accepted forms (slug or model) and, crucially, its origin in search_products. It adds no example formatting beyond the schema's own 'dci5800-t8e2' sample.

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?

Specific verb (Get) plus enumerated resources (specifications, images, source) for exactly one product, scoped by slug or model. It also separates itself from both siblings: the slug comes from search_products, and quote-time figures belong to a different path.

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?

It tells the agent where the identifier comes from (search_products) and effectively excludes commercial data by noting prices, lead times, reach and OSNR are confirmed per quote, which points at request_quote. It stops short of an explicit 'use request_quote when you need pricing' directive.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds real value by disclosing the outcome (a tracking ID is returned) and the downstream effect (an engineer replies to the work email within 24 hours), which tells the agent this is an externally visible commitment. It stops short of warning that the call is non-idempotent, so repeat submissions may create duplicate RFQs — the one behavioral trait an agent most needs warned about here.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, precondition, then return/outcome. The gating condition is front-loaded before the consequence, which is the right ordering for an agent deciding whether to call.

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 13-parameter submission tool it covers the essentials — who it acts for, the required identity fields, and what comes back without an output schema. The remaining gap is the non-idempotent behavior: an agent is not told whether retrying a failed submission is safe.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates the four required identity fields but adds nothing about the domain parameters (products, quantity, networkDistance, technicalRequirements) beyond what the schema already documents, and does not explain how the optional fields affect quote quality.

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?

Specific verb+resource: submits an RFQ to OptiLibra on behalf of a buyer. It is unambiguously distinct from the sibling tools get_product and search_products, which are read/lookup operations, so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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?

It states an explicit gating condition — 'Only call this when the buyer has asked for a quote and provided their real name, work email, company and country' — which functions as both when-to-use and when-not-to-use. The prerequisites are concrete enough to be checked before invocation.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds the missing return contract ('product names, summaries and URLs'), which matters because there is no output schema. It does not mention result caps, pagination, or ranking behavior, which are the remaining behavioral unknowns.

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, front-loaded with the verb and catalog scope, and the return shape is stated last where it belongs. The middle enumeration is dense but earns its place by improving semantic matching against product-family queries.

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 only two optional parameters and no output schema, the definition supplies what is otherwise absent: the catalogue scope and the returned fields. It stops short of describing result volumes or pagination, a minor but real gap.

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%, with both query and category documented including examples, so the description carries no additional burden. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search') plus the exact resource ('OptiLibra's catalog of optical networking equipment') and enumerates the product families covered, so an agent knows precisely what is searchable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_product or request_quote, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent must infer that this is the discovery entry point and that get_product should be used once a product is identified. There is no explicit 'use this when…' or 'use X instead when…' routing guidance despite the presence of two siblings.

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