Create Quote

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

Annotations already disclose destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value: every successful call returns a new quoteId even for replacements (important non-idempotency detail) and it requires an authenticated Retail account, though it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or failure modes.

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 sentences with the most important warning ('LIVE ACCOUNT ACTION') front-loaded, followed by return-value behavior and a pointer to the relevant doc. No filler.

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?

It correctly covers that a quoteId is returned and that the action is live and fund-affecting, which is the key context for a nested-object mutation tool with no output schema. It is still incomplete on the nested parameter semantics and on prerequisites such as rfqId sourcing, which matter for this complexity.

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 reported at 0%, and the nested body fields (rfqId, restRemainder, postOnly) are undocumented in both schema and description. The description carries none of the burden of explaining what rfqId refers to or what restRemainder/postOnly control, leaving the agent to guess on a fund-affecting call.

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 ('Creates a quote') and ties it to the authenticated Retail account, which is enough to distinguish it from neighboring read tools like get_quotes. It does not explicitly contrast with create_rfq or accept_quote, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 'LIVE ACCOUNT ACTION' prefix and the note about real funds/account state imply this is a high-stakes write to be used deliberately, and the link points to replacement behavior. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives such as accept_quote or confirm_quote.

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