generate_truequote

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. It mentions generating a recommendation and ROI analysis, implying a read-only or analytical operation, but doesn't specify if this is a simulation, requires external data, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place by clearly stating what the tool does and when to use it, with no wasted words or redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers purpose and usage well, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like output format, error handling, or dependencies. Without annotations or output schema, more context on what the tool returns or how it operates would improve completeness for this analytical tool.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or context about the parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between fields like 'hasSolar' and 'solarMW'. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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: 'Generate a TrueQuote™ BESS recommendation and ROI analysis for a prospect.' It specifies the verb ('generate') and resource ('TrueQuote™ BESS recommendation and ROI analysis'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_proposal' or 'compare_competitor', which might also involve generating analyses or comparisons.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'Use this when a prospect wants to know if battery storage makes sense for their facility.' This gives a specific scenario, but it doesn't mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternatives among sibling tools, such as 'qualify_lead' for initial assessments or 'compare_competitor' for competitive analysis.

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