Quote a Poster

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), yet the description adds real behavioral context: no side effects, no billing, and a contract that the returned payload must be passed unchanged to create_poster. A note on freshness/expiry of the quote would have pushed this to a 5.

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, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the downstream workflow second. Every sentence adds a distinct piece of information (what it reads, what it returns, where the values originate).

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?

No output schema exists, but the description adequately characterizes the return value as an exact request the agent should display and then forward. Combined with annotations covering the read-only safety profile, the main remaining gap is the undocumented parameter semantics, which is significant but not fatal for a quote-before-create flow.

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 six parameters (model, prompt, vendor, quality, styleId, aspectRatio), so the description carries the full documentation burden. It only hints that models, sizes and prices 'come from the API', giving no syntax, defaults, or expected values for any parameter. This is a substantial gap for a 6-param tool.

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/quote) and resource (Poster price and supported selection) and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling create_poster by clarifying it does no generating or charging. An agent can tell from the text alone that this is a dry-run pricing call, not a write.

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?

Explicitly sets the workflow: quote first, show the user, then pass the returned request unchanged to create_poster after explicit approval. The phrase 'without generating or charging' functions as the when-not-to-use condition that routes generation to create_poster. Nothing is left to inference.

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