dealdesk.get_quote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read but never states read-only behavior, pagination, or that projectId must match the API key/OAuth project (only the schema mentions that). It reads as a list of return fields rather than behavioral disclosure.

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 with no filler. The trailing parenthetical about 'classic + rich/experience paths' is the only slightly opaque element.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description's enumeration is largely redundant with that. What is genuinely missing is disambiguation from sibling read/summary/render tools and any behavioral context for an unannotated tool.

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?

Two parameters with only 50% schema coverage: projectId is documented, quoteId is not. The description adds nothing about the semantics of quoteId (format, source, scope), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb (get) plus resource (quote) and an enumeration of what it returns: status, totals, acceptance summary, analytics, share links. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like dealdesk.get_quote_summary or dealdesk.render_quote_totals, whose scope appears to overlap with 'status, totals, acceptance summary'.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. With siblings this similar (get_quote_summary, list_quote_shares), the agent is left to guess which tool answers which question.

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