Quote builder

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly states that the tool 'costs credits from the account wallet', which is a critical side effect not covered by the annotations. It also describes the output content (itemized, assumptions, scope notes). Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, but the cost disclosure is additional. This is a meaningful enhancement, though not exhaustive (e.g., no mention of execution time or error behavior).

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core transformation (job description + rates → quote) and adds the crucial cost note. There is zero waste; every word contributes. It is well-structured and concise.

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 tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential context: what the output includes (itemized, assumptions, scope notes) and the cost implication. It does not describe the currency parameter's behavior or how pastQuotes influences output, but these are secondary given the schema's own descriptions. The description is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool in most scenarios, though a little more detail on optional parameters would push it to a 5.

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 75% (job, rates, pastQuotes all have descriptions; currency lacks one). The description highlights 'job description plus your rates' aligning with the main parameters but adds no additional semantics for the parameters themselves. It doesn't clarify currency format or how pastQuotes are used. Since the schema already covers most parameters and the description repeats rather than enriches, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool's function: taking a job description and rates to produce an itemized, professional quote. It uses a specific verb ('→' implying generation) and a clear resource (quote). It is distinct from siblings like invoice or contract because it explicitly mentions quotes, and the phrasing 'itemized, professional quote with assumptions and scope notes' makes the output concrete. No tautology; it adds meaning beyond the title.

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 use case: when you have a job description and rates, generate a quote. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use invoice instead). Since the context is unambiguous and no misleading guidance, it earns a 4 rather than a 5 for lacking explicit when-not guidance.

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