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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: it does not execute anything, returns a quote_id that is needed for confirmation, and quotes expire. With no annotations provided, this description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It covers the essential side effects (or lack thereof) and the time-based limitation. It does not mention potential errors or edge cases, but the critical behaviors are stated.

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 concise – three sentences – and front-loads the purpose. Each sentence adds important information: what it does, what it returns, and its safety/expiry. No fluff or redundancy. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 sibling tools (about, ask, confirm, list_actions) and the absence of an output schema, this description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does, what it returns (a quote_id), and how to use it in conjunction with 'confirm'. It also clearly states that nothing executes until confirmation, preventing misuse. There is no missing information that would hinder correct usage.

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 schema already provides detailed descriptions for each parameter (coverage 100%). The tool description adds meaning by explaining how 'tool' and 'args' are used together – 'pins the exact tool + args' – which clarifies their relationship in the quote. It also reinforces that agent_key is optional and will be automatically minted if needed. This is a moderate addition beyond the schema, so a score of 4 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 that the tool 'Get a quote for one action call' – it specifies the verb (get), the resource (a quote), and the scope (one action call). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'confirm' (which presumably executes after a quote) and 'ask' (which might be for questions). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 when to use this tool: before 'confirm', since it returns a quote_id for confirmation and explicitly notes 'Nothing executes until confirm'. It also mentions the expiry (10 minutes) which guides usage. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tools or state 'use this instead of X', but the context of siblings makes it clear enough. Slight deduction for not explicitly contrasting with alternatives.

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