Create Quote with Complex Items

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

The description discloses that the tool creates a quote (write operation) and returns the same format as machship_create_quote (array of rate options with cost and transit info). Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the behavioral context is consistent. No contradictions, and the description adds useful return type information.

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 concise with a single sentence for purpose, followed by a structured Args/Returns section, and two concise usage examples. No wasted words, well-organized for quick parsing.

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 complexity (nested objects, many sibling tools), the description adequately covers what the tool does and when to use it. The return value is described by referencing machship_create_quote's output, which is sufficient. A more detailed output schema or description of the complexItems structure would increase completeness.

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% coverage but only describes the 'quote' parameter generically. The description adds meaning by stating that the quote object uses a complexItems array instead of standard items, and gives examples of when to use. This provides context beyond the schema, though more detail on the structure of complexItems would improve it.

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 creates a freight quote with complex item definitions (detailed packaging, dangerous goods, serialisation data). It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes itself from sibling machship_create_quote by specifying complex items.

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 explicitly provides two 'Use when' examples: when items have dangerous goods codes, serial numbers, or non-standard packaging, and when machship_create_quote returned a validation error about item structure. This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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