workers_tt_buy_quote

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states 'Does not change solary' (likely 'salary') and 'Does not charge until workers_tt_buy_confirm', confirming the tool is read-only and non-destructive. This is clear and sufficient for a preview action, though it could mention permissions or rate limits.

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 four short sentences that front-load the purpose. There is no fluff, but the typo 'solary' and the lack of grouping (e.g., listing parameters separately) slightly reduce clarity. Overall efficient and to the point.

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 an output schema exists (from context), the description need not detail return values. However, it does not explain what the quote returns (e.g., conversion rate, total tt) or what 'group_id' is for. For a preview tool used to inform a subsequent confirm, missing output semantics and the group_id param make it less complete than ideal.

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 description must compensate. It clarifies that 'amount_usd' and 'tt' are alternatives ('Pass amount_usd or tt'), but entirely omits the purpose of 'group_id', which is a string parameter with default empty string. Two of three parameters are partially addressed, leaving a significant gap.

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 explicitly states 'Preview one-time tt buy' which is a specific verb ('Preview') and resource ('tt buy'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'workers_tt_buy_confirm' by noting it does not charge until that tool is called, and from 'workers_salary_quote' by referencing 'tt buy' specifically.

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 implies use this tool to preview before confirming with 'workers_tt_buy_confirm', and tells the agent to 'Pass amount_usd or tt'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., if you want to buy immediately, use confirm directly) or mention any alternatives beyond the implicit confirm step.

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