Get B2B Negotiable Quotes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the B2B requirement and the exclusion of requisition lists. It does not contradict annotations and enhances transparency regarding prerequisites and scope.

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 three concise sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, requirement, and exclusion. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids redundancy, making it easy for an agent to scan and understand.

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 read-only tool with an output schema and all optional parameters, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns, a prerequisite, and a scope exclusion. It doesn't explain 'active' or sorting, but the output schema likely covers return structure, so the missing detail is minor.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description does not add additional parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides. Per calibration, this earns a baseline 3 since the schema carries the parameter context.

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 a specific verb ('Returns'), resource ('active negotiable quotes'), and scope ('for a B2B company_id'). It also differentiates by explicitly excluding requisition lists, making it clear what the tool does not do. Though it doesn't name a sibling, the negative statement effectively distinguishes it from related quote tools.

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 provides a clear prerequisite ('Requires Adobe Commerce B2B') and an exclusion ('Does NOT return requisition lists'), giving context for when the tool is applicable. However, it does not explicitly recommend this tool over alternatives or state when to use a different tool, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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