Get Quote

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose the need for a finalized read grant, which is beyond a bare 'read' statement. However, it does not describe return formats, potential errors, or whether any side effects exist. The read-only nature is implicit from the verb but not explicitly stated, so transparency is adequate but not rich.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core action. Every word earns its place, with no redundant phrases. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, demonstrating excellent conciseness.

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 low complexity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), a short description is acceptable. However, the description omits parameter semantics and any mention of return values, which would be helpful for an agent to invoke and interpret results correctly. It is minimally complete but leaves clear gaps for an agent attempting to use it effectively.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining the parameters. It gives a vague hint that 'grantSessionId' relates to the finalized quote read grant, but it does not explain 'quoteUrl' at all. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter names themselves, leaving users to infer meaning.

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 action ('Read') and the resource ('quote details'), making the tool's primary purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_quote or get_outgoing_payment, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The lack of explicit differentiation prevents a perfect score.

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 phrase 'using a finalized quote read grant' implies a prerequisite context, suggesting this tool should be used when such a grant is available. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. The usage guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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