Quote a private inference locker

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds valuable context beyond them: 'does not reserve capacity, create an account, or spend funds.' This clarifies side effects and safety, aligning with annotations without contradiction. The 'live' qualifier indicates real-time 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every word adds value. It avoids redundancy and clearly communicates purpose and behavioral boundaries in a compact form.

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 tool with 3 optional parameters, good annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, safety, and what the quote is not. However, it does not explicitly state what the returned quote contains (e.g., total price in currency/credits), which could be useful given no output schema exists. Minor gap keeps it from 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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional meaning about parameters (minutes, envelope, placement) beyond what the schema provides, but the schema itself already explains each parameter well, including defaults and enums.

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: 'Get a live, non-binding price quote.' The verb 'get' and resource 'price quote' are specific, and the title 'Quote a private inference locker' adds context. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing non-binding and read-only nature, setting it apart from status, catalog, recipes, and credit pricing.

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 clear context: use this tool to obtain a live, non-binding quote without reserving capacity or spending funds. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as 'use genie_credit_pricing for credit prices' or 'use genie_status for current state.' The context implies usage but lacks explicit exclusions.

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