Get PrintYourDuck Quote Status

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating it is 'public-safe' and does not expose private file keys, payment URLs, supplier details, or sensitive operational data, which goes beyond the annotation hints.

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 with no filler. The core action, inputs, and privacy boundary are stated directly and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to grasp the tool's purpose quickly.

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 tool's low complexity—two required parameters, a read-only operation, and an output schema—the description covers the essential calling context well. The only notable omission is explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling tools, but that is already addressed in the usage guidelines dimension.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the semantic burden, and it does identify both parameters: 'quote request ID' and 'matching customer email'. It adds a useful matching constraint not evident from the property names alone, but it provides no additional format, source, or behavior details beyond what the schema already encodes.

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 states a specific verb ('Look up'), a clear resource ('PrintYourDuck quote status'), and the required inputs ('quote request ID and matching customer email'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on status lookup rather than requirements gathering, recent files, or file submission.

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 user has a quote request ID and matching customer email and wants to check status. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over its siblings or provide any exclusions or alternative routing guidance.

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