Get a price quote

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: account-specific discount and rush are auto-applied, other turnarounds are returned for comparison, and it reports whether the key's spending limits permit the order.

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?

Compact: one dense sentence on the returned content plus a short negating sentence that is well placed. The parenthetical about team discount and rush is slightly crowded, but nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully enumerates what comes back (price, delivery time, comparison turnarounds, spending-limit eligibility) for a single-purpose read tool with only one required parameter. Missing only response-format detail, which is a minor gap.

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 100%, including enum semantics for turnaround and the pages-vs-upload_ids interaction, so the description does not need to carry parameter meaning. It adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline of 3.

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 resource (price + delivery time for a certified translation) and scopes it to this account with team discount and included rush applied. The closing 'Nothing is ordered' implicitly separates it from the mutating siblings (create_order, pay_order, order_status), though no sibling is named directly.

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?

'Nothing is ordered' makes the use context clear: this is a pre-purchase preview to consult before committing. It does not explicitly name the alternative tools (e.g., get_payment_link or create_order) or state when-not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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