Get Quote Request Status

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

The description adds important behavior beyond the annotations: this is a v1 status stub that only reports received/queued, does not yet expose quote_sent or won, retains status records for 90 days, and not-found results do not prove the CRM lead is absent. This is rich, honest behavior 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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by concrete usage rules, limitations, an example, and retention hints. Every sentence carries meaningful information, and the structured examples/hints tags make the details easy for an agent to parse.

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 simple read-only status-checking tool, this is complete: purpose, usage constraints, sibling distinction, current limitations, retention behavior, and a not-found caveat are all covered. The output schema handles return-value details, so no additional information is needed here.

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?

The schema already documents the reference parameter with a pattern, maxLength, and example, so it carries most of the semantic load. The description adds valuable extra context by clarifying that only form-submission references are valid and that the authless request_quote handoff does not generate one.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Check whether a TempGuru quote request reference was received by the CRM or durably queued'), and clearly differentiates itself from siblings by noting that the authless MCP request_quote handoff does not create a reference. It is precise and disambiguates the tool from request_quote.

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?

Explicit usage conditions are given: 'Use only after the buyer personally submitted a TempGuru website form and received a TG reference, or for a historical reference.' It also states an exclusion — the authless MCP request_quote handoff does not create a reference — making it clear when not to use this tool.

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