quote_fabrication

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Submits a fab quotation request,' implying a write operation, but lacks details on side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what the response contains. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and immediately providing an alternative. No unnecessary words, perfectly concise.

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?

While the output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the tool has 7 parameters with defaults, and the description gives no usage hints beyond the alternative. It is adequate but could provide more guidance on parameter usage or edge cases.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but adds nothing extra.

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?

Clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a fabrication quote for a project' and 'Submits a fab quotation request using a project reference.' It also distinguishes from the sibling tool `upload_gerbers_for_quote` by indicating when to use which, making the purpose very clear.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (with a project reference) and when to use an alternative (upload_gerbers_for_quote for direct gerber upload). However, it does not mention other potentially relevant alternatives like quote_assembly or calculate_bom_cost among the many siblings.

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