agentpact.quick_buy

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

The description discloses that the tool creates a need and proposes a deal, which is a creative/mutating operation. It also mentions the return value includes next-step instructions. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false).

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 that is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. It could be slightly expanded with a brief note on required inputs, but it is not overly long.

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 complexity (combined creation and proposal) and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and return value but lacks details like prerequisites (e.g., valid offer and agent IDs) or state implications of the created need.

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 the schema already documents each parameter. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 it is a shortcut to buy an offer by creating a need and proposing a deal. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_need, propose_deal, and quick_sell.

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 implies the tool is for quick purchase when you want to combine multiple steps. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid it (e.g., if more customization is needed) or mention alternatives like creating a need and proposing a deal separately.

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