get_quote

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

The description lacks any behavioral details. It does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, what the response format is, or any authorization requirements. With no annotations, the tool's behavior is completely opaque.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single short phrase. While it is not verbose, it is so brief that it sacrifices informativeness. For a simple tool, conciseness is good, but here it borders on under-specification.

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 lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. The agent has no information about return values, error states, or behavior. Even for a trivial get-by-ID tool, more context is needed.

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 defines quote_id as a required UUID, but the description provides no explanation of this parameter. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the agent must infer its purpose from the parameter name alone. The description adds zero semantic value.

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 '見積書の詳細。' ('Quote details.') indicates the tool retrieves details for a quote. However, it does not explicitly state that it gets a single quote by ID, nor does it distinguish from sibling tools like list_quotes or get_invoice. The purpose is understood but not clearly articulated.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives such as list_quotes (for listing) or update_quote_draft (for modification). There is no mention of prerequisites or context.

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