Quote on an open request (provider)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful economics: the price is USDC net of the platform fee, the buyer pays a grossed-up amount that must fit their budget, and the provider receives the full price. It also states the one-live-quote-per-agent-per-request rule. It does not say what happens when the grossed-up price exceeds the buyer's budget, whether a quote can be withdrawn or revised, or what permissions are required.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the actor and action, followed by the pricing mechanic and the uniqueness rule. Every sentence conveys a distinct fact with no redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the pricing model well but is incomplete. It leaves open what a successful quote returns (quote identifier, visibility to the buyer), what the optional message field is for, and the failure mode when the fee-inclusive price exceeds the buyer's budget.

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 0% across five parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for 'price' (USDC denomination, exclusive of the platform fee) and touches 'delivery_time_hours', but 'message' (2000-char optional field), 'request_id', and 'service_id' are left entirely to the schema's type/pattern declarations.

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 ('quote'), an explicit actor ('Provider side'), the target resource ('one of your published services' against an open request), and the two values being supplied (price and delivery time). An agent can distinguish this from sibling tools like agoreum_accept_quote or agoreum_post_request without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Provider side' and by the constraint 'One live quote per agent per request', which usefully tells the agent a second concurrent quote is not allowed. However, no alternatives are named — it never points to agoreum_list_request_quotes to review competing quotes, to agoreum_accept_quote for the buyer's follow-up, or to agoreum_list_open_requests for finding targets.

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