mf_create_quote

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. While '作成します' (creates) implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't mention permissions required, whether this is a transactional operation, what happens on failure, or what the expected output format is. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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, efficient Japanese sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema documentation and is perfectly front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 creation tool with 6 parameters (4 required) and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, whether the quote gets saved to a database, if it's immediately available for download/processing, or how it relates to the broader workflow with billing tools. The 'invoice system compliance' hint is useful but insufficient for full contextual understanding.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'インボイス制度対応' (invoice system compliance) which provides some context about the quote's purpose, but doesn't explain how this relates to specific parameters like excise tax settings.

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 purpose: 'インボイス制度対応の見積書を作成します' (creates an invoice system-compliant quote). It specifies both the verb (creates) and resource (quote), but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like mf_create_billing or mf_convert_quote_to_billing, which would require a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple related tools (mf_create_billing, mf_convert_quote_to_billing, mf_create_billing_from_quote) but no indication of when this quote creation tool is appropriate versus those billing tools. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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