Quote an AI Pack run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns a worst-case point reservation and that BYOK quotes zero points, but it does not state whether the tool has side effects, whether the quote is binding, or what happens on failure. This is partial disclosure, not full transparency.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and enriched with the funding-mode caveat. Every word earns its place and no redundant filler is present.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 7 parameters with low schema coverage, a two-sentence description is too thin. It omits output shape, error behavior, parameter guidance, and relationship to sibling tools like run_ai_pack or quote_ai_pack_audition.

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 only 29%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for fundingMode by distinguishing points vs BYOK, but it says nothing about model, productId, enabledSkills, growthVersion, or token limits. With 7 parameters and most undocumented, this is insufficient.

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 ('Get') and resource ('exact worst-case Point reservation') tied to an AI Pack run, and adds the funding-mode distinction. This clearly differentiates quoting from actually running a pack, even without naming sibling tools.

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 gives clear context: use it before platform-funded inference, and BYOK mode results in zero model-point quotes. It implies the appropriate moment for invocation but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool.

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