Get Quotation

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only (readOnlyHint: true) and non-destructive (destructiveHint: false), so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no extra behavioral context, such as error handling, response format, or performance implications. It meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 a single, concise sentence with no superfluous words. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it immediately useful for an agent scanning tool definitions.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description adequately defines the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more complete by noting what the response contains (e.g., 'returns the full quotation object') or how errors are handled. The absence of output schema shifts some burden to the description, but the current minimalism is nearly sufficient for a straightforward retrieval tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'id', which is described as 'Quotation ID'. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or format details beyond the schema. With high coverage, the baseline score of 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 'Get a specific quotation by ID' clearly states the verb (get), the resource (quotation), and the scope (specific by ID). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'siigo_get_quotations' which likely lists multiple quotations, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid quotation ID, nor does it differentiate from similar 'get' tools like 'siigo_get_quotations' or 'siigo_get_invoice'. No context about when to prefer this over others is given.

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