Services submit quote

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

Beyond annotations (which only say it's not read-only), the description adds concrete behavioral consequences: the price band constraint, the 24h SLA, and the required permission. It doesn't describe the return value, but no output schema exists, so this is acceptable.

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 concise sentences with no waste. The key purpose and scope are front-loaded, followed by the permission, constraint, and SLA consequence. Every sentence contributes.

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 submit action with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it does, who it's for, prerequisites, constraints, and a side effect. It doesn't mention the request state, but given the sibling tool family, this is sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already described. The description reiterates price/ETA/terms but adds no new parameter-level meaning; the price band constraint is already in the schema's price_pence description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb ('answer a quote request') with a specific resource, and explicitly identifies the seller-side context. It distinguishes this from buyer-side actions like accept/reject and from counter_quote by its purpose.

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?

It clearly indicates when to use (seller responding to a quote request) and mentions a prerequisite (respond_quote action). It does not explicitly exclude counter_quote for proposing different terms, but the context is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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