Standard Titanium Quotations

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

The description discloses meaningful state-dependent behavior: pending-review returns only the pending state, while QUOTED returns products, approved line prices, and total amount. This adds value beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, which only cover safety and mutation. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by the state-dependent behavior. Every clause contributes useful information; there is no filler or repetition.

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 simple single-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the two relevant response states and the output schema handles return-value structure. A minor gap is the lack of detail on unknown enquiry IDs or other possible statuses, but the annotations and output schema already cover much of the context.

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 sole parameter enquiryId is already fully documented in the schema, including its origin ('The enquiry ID returned when the quotation was submitted'). The description adds no new parameter-level detail, so the high-coverage baseline of 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?

The description states a specific action ('Check a submitted quotation') and a clear resource, which is immediately distinguishable from the sibling request_quote. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling or contrast the two, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 phrase 'a submitted quotation' implies this tool is for post-submission follow-up, giving a clear context. But there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as request_quote for creating a new quotation, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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 communicate that this is not read-only and not idempotent. The description adds meaningful context by framing the call as a "quotation review" step and requiring explicit customer agreement before submission, which is a valuable guardrail beyond what the annotations provide.

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 sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main purpose and immediately follows with the key usage constraint, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly and accurately.

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 tool with a nested items schema, annotations, and an output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the scope, the submission precondition, and the domain. It does not explicitly describe what happens after submission or point to get_quote_status, but the sibling name and output schema cover most of that 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 coverage for the four top-level parameters is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds one useful detail by enumerating sectionShape values (ROUND, HEX, FLAT, UNKNOWN), but it does not explain the required item fields or other parameter meanings, leaving the schema to carry most of the semantic load.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Submit one or more structured titanium line items for quotation review." This clearly identifies both the action and the object, and it is easy to distinguish from the sibling get_quote_status because one creates a request while the other checks status.

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 gives a clear precondition: "Only call after the customer has reviewed all interpreted items and explicitly agreed to submit them." This effectively tells the agent when not to call, but it does not explicitly mention get_quote_status or outline when that alternative should be used instead.

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