quote_normalize

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it does add real behavioral detail — unexposed fees force an UNEXPOSED status with no all-in, and totals are kept separate from face price. However, it never says whether normalization is a pure computation or persists a record, nor anything about validation failures beyond the unexposed case.

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 dense sentences that front-load the core transformation and follow with the output shape and the one optional behavior. The phrase 'kept separate forever' is stylistic but encodes a real modeling constraint, so little is wasted.

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 15-parameter tool with nested objects, zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and 0% schema descriptions, the definition does not do enough: the return shape (the normalized record) is described only loosely, and most input parameters remain unexplained. An agent would have to guess at hour_cap, owner_fee_exception, and fees_exposed.

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 0% across 15 parameters, and the description documents only a handful: the model values (lead_model, stated_budget, fixed_price, hourly), fee bearers, tax, and ceiling_all_in. Eleven parameters — pro, tip, currency, hour_cap, job_price, hourly_rate, valid_until, fees_exposed, raw_quote_ref, owner_fee_exception, platform — carry no meaning in either the schema or description.

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 and resource (normalize a quote) and enumerates the four supported quote models, which lets an agent distinguish it from the sibling quote_read. It never explicitly contrasts itself with quote_read, but the 'into one record' framing makes the transformation clear.

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 explains what it produces but not when to reach for it instead of quote_read or hire_check, nor any prerequisite for normalizing a quote. The only usage hint is 'Optional ceiling_all_in runs the ceiling test,' which is a parameter note rather than routing guidance.

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