create_quote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: auto-calculation of totals with 21% VAT, returning a quote number and pricing breakdown, and requiring a 'quote' scope API key. These are meaningful beyond what the schema provides, though it could mention whether the operation is idempotent or if the draft state has limitations.

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, purposeful sentences: what it does, VAT calculation, return value, and authentication requirement. Every sentence adds value, with no repetitive or filler content, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context: it states the action, key behavior (VAT), the return information (quote number and breakdown), and the required API scope. While it doesn't detail the exact structure of the pricing breakdown, for a creation tool this is generally adequate. Slight gap is the lack of clarification on quote vs. order in the description itself.

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, documenting all 5 parameters clearly. The description adds context around line items and VAT calculation but does not elaborate on parameter formats or relationships beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles the parameter documentation.

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 'Create a draft quote' with a specific resource (quote) and verb (create), and adds context with '(piedavajums)' and line items. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like place_order, which handles orders, not quotes.

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 using this tool when a draft quote needs to be created, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like place_order or get_prices. No exclusions or alternative tool suggestions are provided, leaving the usage guidance implied rather than explicit.

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