volkern_get_cotizacion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get detailed information' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the information returns in, potential error conditions, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, clear sentence that immediately communicates the core function without any unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 read operation with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations covering safety/behavior and no output schema to describe return values, it leaves the agent guessing about important aspects like response format, error handling, and authentication requirements.

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 description mentions 'a specific quotation' which implies the need for an identifier, but doesn't explicitly reference the 'cotizacionId' parameter. With 100% schema description coverage (the schema fully documents the single required parameter), the description adds minimal value beyond what's already in the structured schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific quotation'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'volkern_get_contact' or 'volkern_get_contrato' beyond specifying 'quotation' as the resource type.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'volkern_list_cotizaciones' (for listing multiple quotations) and 'volkern_create_cotizacion' (for creating new ones), there's no indication that this tool is specifically for retrieving detailed information about a single, existing quotation identified by ID.

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