Get Quote

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds value by explaining the $expand behavior without contradicting. No additional behavioral traits are needed beyond what is implicit in a read operation.

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 long, front-loaded with the core action, and every word adds information. No unnecessary fluff.

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 read tool with 3 parameters and rich annotations, the description covers the key usage pattern (get by ID with optional expand/select). It does not explain return values, but no output schema is expected. It is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to use correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of the 'expand' parameter with an example ('E.g.: "OtherProperties,Products,Pages"'), which aids in constructing proper queries. The 'id' and 'select' parameters are adequately described in 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('a single quote (proposal) by ID'), differentiating it from sibling tools like list, create, or delete. The mention of $expand further specifies the tool's capability.

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 usage guidance by explaining how to use $expand to include related entities, which is the primary customization for this tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., ploomes_quotes_list for multiple records), though the context is clear.

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