Send a quotation

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

Annotations already signal this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds the concrete sending mechanisms. It does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as whether marking as sent is reversible or what side effects occur on the quotation record, but the lack of contradiction with annotations keeps it neutral.

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 and informative, listing the core purpose and methods in two sentences. There is slight redundancy with 'Send a quotation' appearing twice, but it remains concise and front-loaded.

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 straightforward send operation with a well-defined schema and accompanying annotations, the description covers the essential modalities. It omits return value details or error conditions, but no output schema exists and the operation is not complex enough to require more.

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% and the schema itself documents method, email_address, and id reasonably well. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what is in the schema, so it neither compensates for gaps nor adds extra meaning.

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?

Describes a specific action on a specific resource: sending a quotation. It further narrows the action by enumerating three concrete methods (email, mark as sent, Peppol), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling send tools for invoices/orders.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to send a quotation) and lists the available send methods, but it does not explicitly contrast this with sibling tools like send_sales_invoice or send_sales_order, nor does it mention conditions when this tool should not be used.

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