ingrammicro_validate_quote_to_order

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the read-only, side-effect-free behavior is covered. The description adds valuable context about the response structure: vmfAdditionalAttributes at header level and vmfAdditionalAttributesLines at line level, which describe what the validation returns beyond the annotations.

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 tightly structured: purpose first, then the exact call sequence, then what to extract from the response. Every sentence adds actionable guidance with no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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?

With one documented parameter, an output schema present, and clear instructions on how to use the response, the description fully equips an agent to call this tool and act on its results. It also names the prerequisite relationship with a sibling, making the integration context 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%, so the single quote_number parameter is already well documented. The description reinforces the parameter's purpose by showing it passed to create_cloud_order, but it does not add new semantic detail beyond what the schema 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 names a specific verb ('Validate'), a specific resource ('a quote before converting it to an order'), and a secondary outcome ('learn which fields the vendor requires'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like ingrammicro_create_cloud_order and ingrammicro_create_order by positioning it as a prerequisite validation step.

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 says 'Always call this before ingrammicro_create_cloud_order(quote_number=...)' and names the exact sibling tool to pair with. This leaves no ambiguity about when to use this tool versus the order-creation alternatives.

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