boond_quotations_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' communicates a read-only operation with no side effects, which is the core behavioral trait for this simple tool. However, it does not disclose error behavior, return format, required permissions, or any rate-limit concerns.

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 a single five-word sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple get-by-ID tool and front-loads the action, resource, and parameter in that order.

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 one-parameter getter, the description plus schema is minimally adequate to make the call. However, there is no output schema to explain the return value, no annotations for safety or side-effect context, and no guidance about failure behavior, so the description leaves several operational details to inference.

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 adds little beyond the schema: the property is already named 'id', and 'by ID' mostly restates it. It does not explain the ID format, provenance, or any special semantics beyond the schema's minLength and required constraints.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('quotation'), and the lookup mechanism ('by ID'). It is unambiguous and, combined with the tool name, is distinguishable from the sibling boond_quotations_search, though it does not explicitly call out that distinction.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as boond_quotations_search. It only implies that the tool is for retrieving a single quotation by ID, but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or when the search sibling would be a better choice.

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