get_mail_quote

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it returns price in USD and estimated SOL amount based on exchange rates, indicating it's a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it doesn't mention potential errors, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving gaps in behavioral context. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 front-loaded and concise, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's function and return values without unnecessary details. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the purpose, and the second specifies the output. There is zero waste, making it highly efficient.

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's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete. It covers the purpose and return values but lacks details on error handling, prerequisites, or full behavioral context. Without an output schema, it should ideally explain return formats more, but it does mention price and SOL amount, which is a partial compensation. This results in a minimal viable score of 3.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear details for both parameters (country and color). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining usage scenarios or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3, which is appropriate here.

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: 'Get a price quote for sending physical mail.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('price quote'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_mail (which likely sends mail rather than quoting). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other quote-related tools if any existed, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'sending physical mail' and 'current exchange rates,' suggesting it's for pricing mail services. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., no mention of when to choose get_mail_quote over send_mail or other siblings). The context is implied but not detailed, scoring a 3.

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