calculate_quote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that a local file is uploaded and a quote is computed with material and print time breakdown, but it fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it creates a persistent quote record, what permissions are required, or any rate limits or side effects. This is minimal behavioral context for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the action (upload) and the outcome (compute quote). There is no redundant or filler text, making it appropriately sized and easy to parse.

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?

Given the moderate complexity, complete schema coverage, and absence of annotations or an output schema, the description is adequate but missing some contextual details. It does not clarify whether the quote is stored or ephemeral, how errors are handled, or whether any prerequisites (e.g., prior calls to list_materials) are needed. It provides basic output hints ('material and print time breakdown') but leaves gaps for an agent to fill.

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, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format expectations or interdependencies. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('compute') and resource ('manufacturing cost quote'), and explicitly states the upload of a local 3D model file with supported formats. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_materials or get_quality, which are lookup tools.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description just states what the tool does, without indicating when an agent should choose it over alternatives such as manual calculation or other quoting methods. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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