teamleader_quotation_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic read action without disclosing any behavioral traits such as required permissions, potential errors (e.g., not found), or response format. This is a significant gap for an unannotated read tool.

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?

One concise sentence, front-loaded with action and resource, with zero unnecessary words. Perfectly sized for the simple purpose.

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 the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but lacks any information about return value, error behavior, or usage context. With no annotations or output schema, more explanation would be expected for full completeness.

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 input schema already describes the only parameter `id` as 'Quotation UUID' with 100% coverage, so the description adds nothing beyond the structured data. A baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema provides full parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific quotation'), and specifies retrieval by ID. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like quotations_list, quotation_create, and quotation_update.

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?

Implies usage when a specific quotation ID is known and details are needed, but does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives like quotations_list. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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