get_quote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the upstream dependency, the mock fallback, and the payment requirement—valuable traits beyond the tool name and schema. It does not cover error cases or response format, but for a zero-parameter tool this is still strong disclosure.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and object, followed by the two key behavioral caveats. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 simple zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: what is fetched, where it comes from, mock behavior, and cost. It does not explicitly describe the response shape, but the simplicity of the tool and the 'sample quote' wording make the definition adequately complete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter meaning to clarify; the description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than parameter details.

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 and resource: 'Fetch a sample quote from the upstream API.' It also adds the mocking nuance, which helps distinguish this from the sibling tools server_info and proxy_request. The name get_quote is reinforced rather than merely restated.

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 implies this tool is used to retrieve a quote and mentions environment-dependent behavior (mock when UPSTREAM_URL is unset). However, it does not explicitly say when to use get_quote versus siblings or provide exclusion criteria. Usage context is present but not framed as alternatives.

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