Create Quote

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

Annotations provide no special hints (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), but the description adds behavioral context: defaults to draft status and can be converted to invoices later. It does not contradict annotations. The description could mention side effects (e.g., automatic saving, email triggers) but is sufficient.

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 concise with two key sentences and an example. The bilingual repetition (English and Spanish) adds a minor redundancy but does not harm clarity. The most important information (create, requires, default) is front-loaded.

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 complete schema and existing annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, requirements, default behavior, and lifecycle (convertible to invoice). It does not mention prerequisites like client existence, but the output schema presumably handles return information. Overall, it is adequately complete.

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% coverage with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by providing an example ('clientName='Acme Corp', items=[...]') and explaining the workflow (conversion to invoices), making it easier to understand parameter usage.

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 'Create a new quote/estimate for a client' and specifies required inputs (clientName, at least one line item). It distinguishes from siblings like create_invoice and create_credit_note by mentioning the quote-to-invoice conversion path.

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 by stating requirements (client name, line items) and default status (draft). However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like create_invoice or explain when to use this tool versus others, leaving room for ambiguity.

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