quote_study

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates state within an open world. The description usefully adds the cost trait ('Free') and a post-payment guard, but says nothing about what refreshing actually changes or whether the operation is idempotent.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action leads and the constraint and cost follow immediately. Every clause carries information.

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 mutating tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers the key precondition but omits what a refreshed quote returns or how it changes study state. Adequate but with a clear gap for an agent deciding whether the result matters.

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?

There is a single study_id parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema only supplies the uuid format and pattern. The description does not mention study_id at all; the name is self-evident enough that the gap is small, but it does not compensate for the missing coverage.

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 and resource ('Refresh... quote') with a scoping qualifier ('unpaid study's'), which is more precise than the bare name. It implicitly distinguishes itself from purchase_study by warning to 'recover that purchase instead', but does not name that sibling directly, leaving some inference to the agent.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition for exclusion ('Do not refresh after signing a payment') and points toward the correct alternative action ('recover that purchase instead'). It stops short of naming the sibling tool (e.g. purchase_study) or stating the positive conditions under which a refresh is warranted.

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