company_quotes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add meaningful context by noting that supplied proofs are verified and that provider effects remain external, which helps an agent understand validation and side-effect boundaries. However, it does not disclose what 'advance' mutates, whether changes are reversible, or what lifecycle states exist.

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 compact sentence with the main action front-loaded ('Inspect or advance quotes') and no filler. It could be considered slightly jargon-heavy, but it earns its length and does not repeat the tool name or schema fields.

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 tool has seven parameters, a default operation, and no annotation coverage, so an agent needs substantial contextual guidance to invoke it correctly. The description provides only a high-level lifecycle summary and omits how to construct calls, what operation values are valid, and what happens at each lifecycle stage.

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 0%, and the description does not name or explain any of the seven parameters such as operation, project_id, bundle_json, or payload_json. The phrase 'supplied proofs' hints at what some payload may contain, but does not map to the schema or clarify required inputs, so the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of 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 names a specific resource (quotes) and two broad intents (inspect or advance) within a lifecycle, which gives an agent a workable sense of the tool's purpose. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling company_* tools, and the phrase 'scoped lifecycle' is somewhat opaque, so it stops short of a 5.

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 offers no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives, no exclusions, and no conditions such as 'use only when...' or 'prefer X for...'. An agent is left to infer usage context solely from the resource name 'quotes', which is insufficient given the large sibling set.

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