submit_quote

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

With no annotations, the description provides useful behavioral information: the action is a submission (write operation), the team will respond within 15 minutes, and the tool has minimum input requirements. It could be more explicit about side effects (e.g., record creation) or asynchronous behavior, but it covers key behavioral traits adequately.

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 consists of two concise sentences: one stating the core action and one providing response time and minimum input requirements. There is no redundant information, and every sentence adds value.

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 has 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and minimum requirements but lacks information about the response format (e.g., returns quote ID or confirmation), whether the operation is synchronous or asynchronous, and any post-submission behavior. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 the descriptions for each parameter are already present in the input schema. The tool description adds minimal additional semantics beyond repeating the minimum requirements. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides clear meaning for each parameter.

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 verb 'submit' and the resource 'formal quote request', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_quote and search_flights. It also specifies the target team (VOLO's operations team), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 specifies the minimum required inputs (route, date, passenger count) which aligns with the schema's required fields. It also sets expectations about response time (15 minutes during business hours). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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