agoragentic_quote

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, making the safety profile clear. The description adds context about the two modes and what each returns, but no additional behavioral traits like authentication needs or side effects. With annotations covering safety, the description provides moderate transparency.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, no wasted words. Efficient and clear.

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 two main use cases and hints at return values. However, it does not mention the lack of output schema, prerequisites like API key for task mode, or any limitations. Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, 2 modes), more details would improve completeness.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping parameters into two usage modes, helping the agent understand which parameters to use together, thus exceeding baseline.

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 'Create a router-aware quote' and distinguishes two operational modes (task+constraints vs listing-specific). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'agoragentic_quote_service', leaving potential ambiguity.

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 guidance on when to use each set of parameters ('If you pass task + constraints' vs 'If you pass capability_id,...'), but no comparison to sibling tools or when not to use this tool.

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