Quote ISP proxies

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

Annotations declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is largely covered; the description adds the key non-obvious behavior that no purchase occurs and that a short-lived quote_id is created. It does not quantify the quote's validity window or say what happens if it expires, which would have made this a 5.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler: purpose first, return value second, workflow constraint third. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 adequately covers the return value (quote_id plus total) despite no output schema, and it covers the buy-vs-quote boundary. However, for a six-parameter pricing call whose schema has zero descriptions, the absence of any parameter explanation leaves a real gap an agent must guess through.

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% across six parameters (tier, countries, term, features, bandwidth_gb, proxy_replacements), and the description names none of them. Terms like "package" hint at configuration, but tier semantics, country/quantity structure, and the meaning of bandwidth_gb or proxy_replacements are left entirely to bare enum values.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Price an ISP proxy package") and immediately scopes it with "without buying it," which cleanly separates it from the purchase sibling isp_order. An agent can classify this as a non-committal pricing call without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing guidance: call this first, show the price to the user, then call isp_order. It does not mention when-not-to-use or contrast with isp_catalog, but the pre-purchase workflow role is unambiguous.

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