accelo_get_quote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation but discloses nothing about behavior: no permission requirements, no note on what happens for an invalid/nonexistent ID, and no indication of the returned shape. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin.

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 short and front-loads the core action in the first sentence, with a compact args block. It is essentially free of padding, though the arg annotations are so terse they read as boilerplate rather than genuine structure.

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 get-by-id tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least explain the 'fields' selection syntax and the not-found behavior. Neither is covered, so an agent lacks enough to invoke it correctly beyond the trivial required ID.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it only offers 'id: Quote ID' (near-tautological) plus 'fields: Additional fields to return'. It names both parameters but gives no format, valid values, or syntax for the 'fields' list, leaving meaningful gaps against a 0% coverage schema.

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 and resource ('Get a single quote by ID'), and 'single' implicitly contrasts with the sibling accelo_list_quotes. It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly names the alternative list tool the way a top-tier definition would.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus accelo_list_quotes or accelo_count_quotes, no note about retrieving a quote you already have an ID for, and no mention of prerequisites or error conditions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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