quote_inbound_forward

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

With annotations already declaring read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, the description adds substantial context: cost formula, handling breakdown, tracking notes, bill timing, sample versus live pricing, scope requirements, key-environment behavior, proposal limits, policy checks, and image URL restrictions. It contradicts none of the annotations and meaningfully extends them.

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 purpose and workflow are front-loaded, and most sentences carry operational or safety information. The description is dense and somewhat run-on, but it avoids repetition and keeps essential details rather than padding.

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 read-only quoting tool with a rich output schema, the description covers the call, the downstream action, scope/auth constraints, sample behavior, policy checks, and safety boundaries. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly without needing return-value documentation.

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 100%, and the two parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description reinforces that item_id is an inbound item and postal_code is a destination ZIP, but it adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: pricing every forwarding class for an item to a US ZIP. It also names the API path and the downstream consumer tool, request_inbound_action, so an agent can distinguish this quoting operation from sibling read/write tools.

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 explicitly says to choose a class and pass the quote as action.expected_quote to request_inbound_action. It also gives the sample/test item exception and identifies the required scope, key behavior, and stop-on-denial rule, leaving little ambiguity about when and how to use it.

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