mf_get_quote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While '取得します' (retrieve) implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't explicitly state whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, whether there are rate limits, or what format the response takes. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is inadequate behavioral 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place.

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 that this is a retrieval tool with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't help the agent understand what '詳細情報' (detailed information) includes, how this differs from mf_list_quotes, or what authentication/authorization is required. The description should provide more context for proper tool selection and usage.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage with a clear parameter description ('見積書ID' - quote ID). The tool description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 '見積書の詳細情報を取得します' clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving detailed information about a quote/estimate. It uses a specific verb ('取得します' - retrieve/get) and resource ('見積書' - quote/estimate). However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like mf_list_quotes or mf_get_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_list_quotes, mf_get_billing, mf_get_item, mf_get_partner) that likely serve similar purposes for different resources, but the description doesn't help the agent choose between them. No explicit when/when-not instructions are provided.

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