Find Active Quote by Email

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

Annotations already establish readOnly and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it clarifies the return scope (quote only, no items), specifies the uniqueness dimension (most recent active for a given email), and discloses the validation strictness (exact email required, partials rejected). It does not need to restate the annotations and adds useful operational details.

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 two sentences, with the core purpose in the first sentence and the essential caveat (no items, use sibling) in the second. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded. The parameter descriptions are similarly tight and informative.

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's simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description fully equips an agent to call it correctly. It covers the return value, the exclusion of items, the alternative for items, and the email strictness. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for the primary parameter email by explaining exact-match behavior and the rejection of partial strings, which is critical for correct invocation. Profile and magentoRoot are standard overrides whose descriptions already clarify their purpose. This enhancement justifies a 4.

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 states the function precisely: 'Returns the most recent active quote for a customer email.' It identifies the specific resource (quote), the filter (email), and the recency/status qualifiers. It also immediately differentiates from the sibling get_active_quote_items by explicitly stating what it does NOT return, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 explicit directional guidance: it tells the agent to use get_active_quote_items with the returned quote_id when quote items are needed, and the email parameter description reinforces the boundary by directing partial searches to find_customers_by_name and noting that partial strings are rejected. This is clear when-to-use and when-to-use-alternative guidance.

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