Quote a crate by code

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, which imply a side-effecting, non-repeatable, externally-dependent call — yet the description says nothing about side effects. The only hint that a quote is emailed comes from the input schema's email description, not the tool description. The description squanders the chance to disclose the mailed-quote behavior or non-idempotency.

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?

A single tight sentence with the sibling reference and example front-loaded; nothing is padded. It is arguably too terse, but that is an incompleteness problem rather than a verbosity one.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for an openWorld, non-idempotent tool whose annotations imply side effects, the description should at minimum note that the quote is generated and emailed and whether calls are repeatable. Minimum viable but with a real behavioral gap.

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 both parameters (code, email) are already documented in the schema, including the emailing side effect. The description adds only a richer code example (with the -Q2 suffix) beyond the schema's example, which is marginal added value.

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 states the tool is equivalent to quote_crate but keyed on a configuration code, and gives a concrete code example, so the verb (quote) and resource (crate) are inferable. It distinguishes itself from the sibling quote_crate by input form. It does fall short of a self-contained statement of purpose because the agent must already know what quote_crate does.

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?

Usage is implied: reach for this tool when you have a configuration code string. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of the sibling parse_crate_code / encode_crate_code, and no statement of when to prefer quote_crate instead. Adequate but thin.

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