get_quote

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

The description adds the 'tries known quote tables' behavior, which is useful beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. However, it does not disclose what happens when no identifier is provided or when multiple tables match, and it omits any failure semantics. The read-only nature is consistent with annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the core purpose and the multi-table search behavior with no wasted words. The description is compact and easy to scan.

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 lookup tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not state that at least one of number or sys_id is required (schema has no required fields), nor does it describe the return value or error behavior. This could lead an agent to call it without an identifier.

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 parameters are already documented. The description reinforces that number or sys_id are primary lookup keys and that 'table' is optional ('if you know it'), adding slight context. It does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('CPQ/sales quote record'), and clarifies lookup by number or sys_id. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'list_quotes', but the singular 'a quote record' implies a single fetch. The mention of 'tries known quote tables' adds a distinctive scope.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are mentioned. The description does not state when to prefer this over 'list_quotes' or when a table parameter is required. The implied context (use when you have a quote identifier) is not articulated.

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