seeany_quote_generation

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive, so the description does not need to prove safety. It adds a valuable behavioral caveat: this is only an estimate and does not reserve credits, which prevents an agent from assuming side effects. It does not detail response behavior, but the key non-mutating trait is covered.

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 very short sentences with no filler. The first states the core purpose immediately; the second earns its place by addressing the credit-reservation misconception.

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 that there is no output schema, the description should explain what kind of quote/cost result will be returned, but it does not. It also leaves parameter semantics to inference. Still, the tool is simple and the selection context is present, so this is minimally viable rather than severely incomplete.

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 does not explain the meaning of model, count, use_case, or resolution. The agent must rely entirely on names and enum values. The description also does not connect these parameters to how cost is calculated.

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?

Description clearly identifies the tool as a cost estimator and frames it as a pre-task step, which distinguishes it from siblings like create_product_visual or generate_product_image. The verb 'estimate' and resource 'generation cost' are specific and non-tautological.

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 phrase 'before creating a task' gives an explicit when-to-use signal. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the temporal context is clear enough for an agent to route appropriately.

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