ingrammicro_create_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 mentions that the quote is a 'price hold, not a purchase' (implying non-finality) and notes that Ingram requires the requester's email. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., sending emails via send_quote_copy), success/failure behaviors, or authentication/permission requirements, leaving some ambiguity.

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, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the purpose and workflow. It avoids redundancy and is well-structured, with the core action and important clarifications presented in a compact manner.

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?

The description provides key contextual information: it explains the non-purchase nature, the conversion path, and the required requester_email. It does not elaborate on output or further details, but since an output schema exists (per context signals), explaining return values is unnecessary. Overall, the description gives sufficient context for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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 schema descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, providing clear meaning for each field (e.g., requester_email, products, end_user_info). The tool description does not add extra semantics beyond the schema, so the score aligns with the baseline for full schema coverage.

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: create a new quote as a price hold, not a purchase. It explicitly contrasts with order creation and provides the subsequent conversion path via ingrammicro_create_cloud_order and validation via ingrammicro_validate_quote_to_order, which distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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 indicates when to use the tool (when creating a quote) and clarifies that it is not a purchase, while also guiding the user on the recommended next steps (conversion and validation). This effectively communicates the usage context and alternative pathways.

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