pennylane_get_quote

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety behavior is fully covered structurally. The description only adds that the full detail (amounts, lines, status, customer) is returned, which is largely redundant given an output schema exists; it says nothing about errors or auth.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the identifier, with no wasted words. The second sentence's field list is slightly redundant against the output schema but does not bloat the text.

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?

For a single-argument read tool with rich annotations and a dedicated output schema, the description covers what the tool does and what it returns. Nothing critical is missing, though an explicit sibling reference would round it out.

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% for the single required 'id' parameter, so the schema itself documents the argument. The phrase 'par son identifiant' merely restates the id parameter without adding format, range, or lookup semantics. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb (récupère) and resource (devis) scoped to retrieval by identifier, and enumerates the returned fields (montants, lignes, statut, client). It is easy to distinguish from list_quotes/create_quote/update_quote, but it never names a sibling explicitly to reinforce the routing.

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?

Usage is implied: to fetch a single quote you already know the id of. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. pennylane_list_quotes or pennylane_list_quote_lines, and no stated preconditions (e.g. needed permissions or whether the quote must exist).

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