ingrammicro_get_quote

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safe read nature is covered. The description adds value by specifying the return components (line items, pricing, expiry, status), giving the agent a clear expectation of the response. However, it does not disclose error behavior, permission requirements, or any other non-obvious behavior, which would elevate beyond a 3.

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 a single focused sentence with no filler. The main action and key components are front-loaded. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and output.

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 low complexity (one parameter, read-only annotations, output schema provided), the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. It states what the response contains and the resource acted upon. A slight gap is the absence of any note about alternatives or error cases, but these are not critical for a read-only get-by-ID 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 input schema already provides 100% documentation for the only parameter, including a concrete example. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema gives, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full detail for one quote'), and enumerates the actual content (line items, pricing, expiry, status). This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like search_quotes, which focus on searching rather than retrieving a single quote's full detail.

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 for retrieving a single quote's full detail, contrasting with search_quotes which naturally handles discovery. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. Usage guidance is present but only implicit.

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