get_assembly_quote

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the tool is not connected and performs no network calls, warning the agent that results are stubbed. It stops short of describing the return shape or what the stub data looks like.

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?

A single efficient sentence with no filler, front-loading the tool's purpose. The most consequential detail — that it makes no network calls — is relegated to a trailing parenthetical, which slightly buries the caveat.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the stub caveat, but omits what the quote actually returns and what 'quantity' affects. An agent knows the tool exists but not how to interpret or trust its output.

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% and the description never mentions the single 'quantity' parameter at all, so it does not compensate for the schema gap. The parameter's default and meaning must be inferred from its title alone.

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 ('Get a PCB assembly quote'), which is unambiguous and distinguishable from every sibling tool since none other produces a quote. No explicit sibling differentiation is needed because no competing tool exists, but the purpose itself is clear.

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 parenthetical caveat ('not connected yet: makes no network calls') implicitly signals when the tool is usable — i.e., it returns stub data rather than a real quote. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives like export_bom or check_jlc_orientation.

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