Create Quote

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

Annotations lack clear hints (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false). The description adds that the default status is 'draft' and mentions future conversion to invoices, providing some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like permission requirements or side effects beyond creation.

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 extremely concise: two sentences and one example. It front-loads the core purpose and requirements, then adds a practical example. No filler or redundancy.

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 complexity (14 params, but schema covers them all) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essentials. It includes required fields and a future use case (conversion to invoice), but could mention that clientId can back-fill address/taxId.

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 100% (all 14 parameters have descriptions). The description adds an example showing clientName and items structure, which enhances understanding beyond the schema. However, it doesn't explain nuanced parameters like clientLocation or equivalenceSurchargeRate.

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 explicitly states 'Create a new quote/estimate for a client' and specifies required fields (client name, at least one line item), providing a clear verb-resource-action. It distinguishes from siblings like update_quote and create_invoice by mentioning future conversion to invoices.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (initial quote creation) and notes quotes can be converted to invoices. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives (e.g., update_quote for modifications), but the purpose is well-understood.

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