quote_pdf

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

No annotations provided and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling (e.g., what if quote_id is invalid), or output format. The agent is left with no behavioral context.

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 sentence with no redundant words. It is extremely concise, but could be slightly improved by front-loading key info; however, given its brevity, it is not wasteful.

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 is simple but lacks context: no output schema, no mention of what the PDF contains or how it is returned (e.g., URL, binary stream). Without additional details, the agent may misinterpret the expected result.

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 only parameter 'quote_id' has a schema description of '(path parameter)' which is minimal. The tool description adds no further meaning, such as the expected format or example values. Since schema coverage is 100% but the description offers no additional value, the score is below baseline.

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?

Description 'Récupérer le PDF d'un devis' clearly states the action (retrieve) and resource (PDF of a quote). It unambiguously distinguishes from sibling tools like accept_quote, create_quote, list_quotes, etc., which perform different operations.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it doesn't mention that it should be used to download a PDF after a quote is created, nor does it differentiate from invoice_from_quote or other retrieval tools.

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