fulfillment_quote

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: upload process, return values (pricing, lead time, shipping), fee breakdown, and the payment hold/capture mechanism. This is comprehensive and goes beyond minimal expectations.

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 description is well-structured and concise: it opens with a clear purpose statement, follows with parameter documentation, then describes behavior and return values, and ends with a usage directive. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the information is front-loaded.

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?

The description is contextually complete for a quote-gathering tool: it explains the entire flow from input to output, including the payment hold mechanism, fee breakdown, and next step (use fulfillment_order). It does not explicitly mention error handling, but the depth of behavioral context compensates.

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 0%, so the description bears the full load. It provides clear parameter descriptions including source for material_id ('from fulfillment_materials'), unit for quantity, and format for shipping_country (ISO code). This adds significant semantic value beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get quote') and resource ('for a 3D model from Craftcloud'). It differentiates from sibling tools like fulfillment_order and fulfillment_materials by explaining the workflow: use this to get a quote, then use fulfillment_order to place the order.

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 provides clear usage context: it is the first step in the fulfillment workflow, and it directs the user to use the returned quote_id with fulfillment_order. However, it does not explicitly exclude use cases like cached quotes, which a sibling tool addresses. Thus, guidance is good but not exhaustive.

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