quote_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions an optional ceiling re-run but does not disclose permissions, whether that re-run has side effects, expected return shape, or failure behavior.

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 a single tight sentence with the main action front-loaded and no filler. It uses minimal space to convey the core read operation and optional parameter effect.

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?

There are no annotations and no output schema, and both parameters lack schema descriptions. For an agent to call this correctly, the description should explain more about quote_id, what a normalized quote contains, and what the ceiling test affects.

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%, so the description must compensate. It gives some meaning for ceiling_all_in ('re-runs the ceiling test') but does not explain quote_id's format or source, leaving required parameter semantics under-specified.

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 verb and resource: read a normalized quote. It is clear enough to distinguish basic reading from sibling tools like quote_normalize, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Read a normalized quote' and the optional ceiling_all_in parameter, but the description does not say when to use this versus quote_normalize or other siblings, nor when not to use it.

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