create_purchase_quotation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the two creation paths and implies data copying behavior when purchaseRequestDocEntry is provided, which adds value. However, it does not explain side effects, success/failure behavior, authorization needs, or what happens if both lines and purchaseRequestDocEntry are supplied.

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-loads the core purpose, and each sentence earns its place. There is no redundant or filler wording.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and the two creation modes, and the schema fills in parameter details. However, with no output schema and no usage-vs-sibling guidance, an agent is left without important context about expected return values, edge cases, or when this tool is the appropriate choice.

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 83%, so the schema already explains most parameters. The description reinforces the relationship between lines and purchaseRequestDocEntry, but it does not add meaningful parameter-level meaning beyond what is already in the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('purchase quotation (RFQ) for a vendor'), and the two primary creation modes are explicitly outlined. It is distinct from siblings like create_purchase_order or create_purchase_request, though it does not explicitly name a differentiating alternative.

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 internal usage guidance: create from scratch with line items or copy from an existing purchase request using purchaseRequestDocEntry. However, it does not state when to choose this tool over its siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the schema.

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