sales_quote_build

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it uses internal DB, adds costs, and returns a breakdown. However, it does not reveal whether a record is created/stored, auth requirements, or other side effects.

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 concise, front-loaded with purpose, and includes a necessary warning. Every sentence is valuable with no fluff.

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 description covers the main process and positions the tool among siblings. It omits whether the quote is persisted or just returned, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need for that detail.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'BOM file' and 'customer review' but adds little beyond the schema descriptions for parameters like quantity and customer_name.

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 explicitly states 'Price a BOM and generate a quote breakdown' with specific steps (upload, price, add fab/assembly/margin). It differentiates itself as 'Station 1' from siblings like 'quote_assembly' and 'sales_quote_negotiate'.

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 clearly indicates it is the first step for pricing a BOM and warns to review before proceeding. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for specific quoting scenarios.

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