quote_archive_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the return value (quote_id valid 15 minutes, human-readable summary) and the required confirmation workflow. It does not, however, state whether the quote has server-side side effects or what happens on expiration, but what it does disclose is valuable and goes beyond basic schema information.

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 exceptionally concise—two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every clause provides critical information: the binding nature, return format, expiration, and the required confirmation step. No word is wasted.

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 tool with five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what the tool returns, how long it's valid, and the required follow-up action. It does not explain parameter inputs, but the schema fully covers those. The description is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly, though it could mention error conditions or non-binding alternatives.

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?

All five parameters are fully described in the input schema, so the schema provides 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already conveys, which meets the baseline expectation for this dimension.

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 with a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('binding quote for an archive order'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling execute_archive_order by indicating the quote must be confirmed before execution, making its role in the workflow unambiguous.

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 usage context: generate a quote, present it to the user, and wait for explicit confirmation before calling execute_archive_order. While it implies this is a pre-execution step, it does not explicitly mention when to use this instead of the similarly named estimate_archive_price tool, though 'binding' hints at the distinction.

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