Send Quote

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and non-destructive. The description adds context that it sends an email and requires the quote to be in a valid state, providing behavioral insight beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 sentences in English (and Spanish equivalent) that front-load the core action and quickly cover constraints and options. No wasted words.

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 simplicity (2 params, no nested objects) and existence of an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: action, constraints, and optional parameter. It does not explain error handling but that is acceptable.

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?

Input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, both parameters are described. The description reiterates the optional email override but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Send a quote/estimate to the client via email') and specifies resources and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_quote, update_quote, get_quote, and delete_quote by focusing on sending via email and mentioning optional override.

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 explicit conditions ('must exist and should not already be expired or rejected'), guiding when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives but the context of quote vs. invoice tools is clear.

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