quote_tasking_order

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the quote is 'binding', returns a quote_id and summary, and requires feasibility check and user confirmation before execution. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond basic functionality, though it doesn't detail cancellation or expiration policies.

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 three sentences: purpose and return value, precondition, and next action. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy or filler. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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?

With no output schema, the description mentions the return (quote_id and summary) and the critical workflow. It references sibling tools (check_capture_feasibility, execute_tasking_order) for context. Minor gaps like error cases or quote expiration could be added, but the description covers the essential usage pattern adequately.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema (aoi, resolution, product_type, window_start, window_end). The description does not add additional parameter-specific semantics, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the detail.

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 specifies a clear verb with a resource: 'Generate a binding quote for a new satellite capture tasking order.' It distinguishes this from sibling tools like quote_archive_order (archive orders) and estimate_tasking_cost (non-binding estimates) by using 'binding quote' and 'capture tasking order'.

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?

Explicit workflow guidance is provided: 'Precondition: call check_capture_feasibility first and present results to the user.' It also states the follow-up: 'Present this quote to the user and wait for confirmation before calling execute_tasking_order.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool and what to do before/after.

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