dealdesk.get_quote_summary

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this is a plain read of already-persisted data with no enrichment or repricing, which signals a raw, side-effect-free operation, but it says nothing about auth requirements (beyond the projectId hint), pagination, or whether the persisted view can be stale.

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 tight sentence with the scope and the key disambiguating qualifier front-loaded. No filler, though its brevity is part of what leaves the parameter gaps unaddressed.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema already covering return values, the description is adequate on scope. However, it leaves quoteId undocumented and gives no sibling routing, which for a tool sitting next to get_quote and list_quotes is a meaningful gap.

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 description coverage is only 50%: projectId is documented as needing to match the API key/OAuth project, while quoteId has no description at all. The description adds no parameter-level detail to compensate for the undocumented quoteId, so it fails to close 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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (persisted quote line items/options/groups and status), with a useful qualifier that the data is not enriched or repriced. It is clear what the tool does but does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closest sibling, get_quote, or from render_quote_totals.

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 phrase 'without enrichment or repricing' implies the tool should be chosen when raw persisted quote data is wanted rather than a computed/rendered view, but no alternative tool is named and there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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