ingrammicro_search_quotes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the search intent—no mention of pagination behavior, error conditions, or response shape. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not enrich them. With annotations in place, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action and filters, and the second sentence explains the usage context. No wasted words. It could be considered slightly repetitive in listing filters that are also in the schema, but overall it is well-structured and efficient.

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 that this is a search tool with an output schema, annotations for read-only and idempotency, and 100% parameter coverage in the schema, the description provides the needed context for when to use it and how it fits into a workflow. It does not explain the output structure, but that is already covered by the output schema. Minor gap: it doesn't mention that this is a paginated query, though the schema already documents page_size and page_number defaults, so it is reasonably 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already described (e.g., status, page_size, quote_name, etc.). The description's mention of search criteria (number, status, vendor, end customer) partially mirrors those parameters but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb 'Search' with the resource 'quotes' and lists distinct filter criteria (number, status, vendor, end customer). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ingrammicro_get_quote (which retrieves a single known quote) by positioning itself as the way to find a quote number before subsequent operations. The purpose is unambiguous and non-tautological.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this to find a quote's number before ingrammicro_get_quote, ingrammicro_validate_quote_to_order, or converting it to an order with ingrammicro_create_cloud_order.' This gives clear context and connects to related tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative search tools, so it falls just short of a 5.

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