ShipMyCar Vehicle Logistics Quote Connector

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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive. Description adds that it calculates pricing, writes a record, and returns a continueQuoteUrl. It also clarifies what it does not do, providing useful behavioral context beyond 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?

Two-sentence description is extremely concise. Each sentence adds necessary information: first states when and what it does, second states exclusions. No redundant words.

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 3 simple parameters and no nested objects, the description adequately covers purpose, usage timing, behavioral implications, and exclusions. The presence of an output schema (not shown) would cover return values, making this description 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?

All three parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description reinforces the confirm parameter's requirement and hints at contactConsent's role in continuation payload, but adds limited new semantic value beyond the schema.

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 ('generate'), resource ('quote'), and specific context ('after the user explicitly confirms a complete ShipMyCar quote draft'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying that it calculates pricing and writes a record, not just retrieves or updates.

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 states when to use ('after the user explicitly confirms a complete draft') and what it does not do ('does not send email or create a public booking'). Provides clear context and exclusions, though alternatives among siblings are not directly mentioned.

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?

Description adds value beyond annotations: it specifies that the tool inspects and returns route requirements, enabled services, missing fields, and next questions. Annotations already indicate read-only (readOnlyHint=true), so description reinforces and elaborates.

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 usage context, no extraneous words. Efficient and to the point.

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 tool has 1 parameter, output schema, and sibling tools, the description adequately explains the purpose, conditions, and outputs. No missing information for a read-only inspection tool.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'draft' with description 'Current MCP quote draft to inspect.' Description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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 verb 'use this when checking before generation', resource 'ShipMyCar quote draft', and lists specific outputs (route requirements, enabled services, missing fields, next questions). Distinguishes from siblings quote_generate and quote_update_draft.

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 says when to use ('when a ShipMyCar quote draft needs checking before generation') and implies it is for inspection only. Could be stronger by explicitly stating when not to use (e.g., for generation) but provided context is sufficient.

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?

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it returns a stateless draft plus next questions, and confirms no side effects (no record creation, no email, no contact). This adds valuable context that readOnlyHint and destructiveHint alone do not capture.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the usage context and clearly state the tool's effect and non-effects. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 existence of an output schema (which can describe the exact return format), the description appropriately focuses on the tool's behavior and usage context. It mentions the stateless draft and next questions, which is sufficient context for the AI agent. With clear schema and annotations, nothing essential is missing.

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% and the schema already describes both parameters ('draft' and 'patch') clearly. The description adds only marginal value by mentioning the draft is 'stateless' and that the tool returns next questions, but does not alter or enrich the parameter meanings significantly. A score of 3 reflects adequate but not exceptional parameter semantics.

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's purpose: updating a quote draft with user-provided or corrected details. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly noting it does not create records, send email, or contact ShipMyCar, making its specific role 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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('when a user provides or corrects ShipMyCar quote details') and what it does not do (create records, send email, contact). While it implies when not to use, it could be more explicit about alternatives or prerequisites. Still, the guidance is clear and helpful.

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