random-quote

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get a random quote from the API' without revealing side effects, randomness behavior, error handling, or how the parameters affect the result. This lacks transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, making it efficient for its length. However, it is terse and omits useful context about parameters, though this is more a completeness issue than a conciseness one.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to compensate by explaining how to invoke the tool correctly, including parameter usage and return value. It only covers the basic action and leaves the agent guessing about the response format and how filters are applied, making it incomplete for a tool with three optional parameters.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no additional meaning about the parameters, nor does it explain how tags, query, and author influence the random selection, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 clearly identifies the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a random quote'), and it is distinct from the sibling health-check tool. However, it fails to mention the tool's filtering capabilities (tags, query, author), which are part of its purpose.

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 the tool should be used when a random quote is needed, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use filtering parameters or how this tool compares to alternatives. Since the only sibling is health-check, the distinction is obvious, but the usage context is not fully elaborated.

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