send_quote

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context such as email delivery, status updates, or external side effects. It merely restates the action without explaining consequences, leaving the agent to infer behavior from the schema and name.

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 too minimal to be considered appropriately concise; it is under-specified. It consists of only three words and fails to provide a structured explanation that would help an agent understand the tool's operation or parameters.

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 six parameters, a send action, and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It omits how sending works, what happens to the quote, and any prerequisite or side-effect information. The schema and annotations provide some context but cannot compensate for the absence of a meaningful description.

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 covers 67% of parameters with descriptions, but the tool description contributes no parameter meaning. Two parameters (subject, mark_as_open) lack schema descriptions and are not explained by the description, so the agent receives no help for those.

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 'Send a quote' is essentially a tautology of the tool name 'send_quote'. It provides a verb and object but no details that distinguish it from sibling tools like 'issue_quote' or 'mark_as_sent_quote'. The purpose is not clarified beyond what the name already implies.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention emailing, status changes, or contrast with similar quote tools. An agent would have no basis for selecting this over issue_quote or mark_as_sent_quote.

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