novelai_quote

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

Annotations already establish the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: exact Anlas rules, live subscription entitlement and platform pricing, and the 'no generation charge' constraint with only subscription/quote endpoints contacted.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the pricing source and return fields. Efficient overall, though the middle sentences are somewhat dense with pricing jargon that could be trimmed.

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 steps in to describe return contents (known sample count, free/paid/unknown status, amount and breakdown), which is exactly the missing information. The main residual gap is how the nested request/files objects are shaped for each operation, but that is largely a schema concern.

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 67%, with the nested `files` binding and the opaque `request` body already documented in-schema. The description mentions 'official image request' mapping loosely to the request parameter but adds no format, structure, or operation-specific guidance beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (quote) and resource (official image request) and immediately scopes it as cost estimation 'without generating images,' which contrasts it with the generation sibling. The Anlas/pricing detail reinforces what the tool actually does, though it never names the primary alternative (novelai_generate) directly.

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 phrase 'without generating images' implies this is a preview/cost-check step before generation, giving moderate usage signal. However there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, no named alternative, and no stated prerequisites for calling it.

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