Create a new quotation

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the 'Create a new quotation' statement is consistent with them. The description adds a validation step (options endpoint) and a jurisdiction-specific field requirement, but it does not describe response behavior or other side effects. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 short but unnecessarily repeats 'Create a new quotation.' in the first two sentences, wasting a sentence. The remaining content is efficient and front-loaded with the most important prerequisite.

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 rich input schema and the annotations, the description provides adequate high-level context with the options prerequisite and AT/DE condition. However, it does not reference the get_quotation_options sibling tool by name, nor does it describe the return value, which would make it more complete for an agent.

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 describes several fields, but vat_option has no description. The description explains that vat_id, ledger_id, and vat_option must be validated via the options endpoint, which adds actionable meaning beyond the raw schema. The AT/DE delivery_date requirement is also useful, even though the schema already mentions it.

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 'Create a new quotation,' which is a specific verb-resource pair that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_sales_invoice or create_purchase_invoice. The additional context about /quotations/options and AT/DE delivery_date further confirms it is about quotations specifically.

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?

It gives concrete preconditions: use the /quotations/options endpoint first to determine valid vat_id, ledger_id, and vat_option combinations, and the delivery_date requirement for AT/DE administrations. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like update_quotation, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when this tool is appropriate.

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