Get Active Quote Items

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral value beyond those: the parent-child nesting structure for configurable/bundle items and the explicit absence of address data. No contradiction with annotations — 'Returns' aligns with readOnlyHint=true.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first front-loads the core function and the nesting nuance, the second delivers the exclusion and the sibling route. Every clause earns its place, and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 an output schema exists (covering return structure) and rich annotations declare the safety profile, the description covers the essential behavioral nuance (nesting) and the key exclusion. Two minor gaps: the meaning of 'active' in the tool name is never defined, and 'configurable/bundle' nesting could use one clause on how it appears in output. Neither blocks correct invocation.

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 all three parameters (profile, quote_id, magentoRoot) are already documented in the schema with their own descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline-3 case where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('Returns quote_item rows for a quote_id') with precise scope, and adds the distinguishing nesting behavior ('parent-child nesting (configurable/bundle)'). It differentiates from siblings by explicitly naming what it does NOT return (quote addresses), which no sibling description ambiguity could survive.

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?

Gives an explicit exclusion with a named alternative: 'Does NOT return quote addresses — use execute_select_query on quote_address.' This routes the agent away from a tempting misuse. It lacks broader when-to-use framing (e.g., when debugging a quote's item breakdown), but the negative routing is concrete and actionable.

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