distributor_quote

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and handles it well. It explicitly discloses that the tool is read-only, makes no HTTP call to the distributor, and that the quantity is a cached catalog figure whose freshness is not asserted. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond what the schema alone provides.

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 compact, information-dense, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: output scope, parameter selection rule, cached-quantity caveat, and read-only/no-HTTP note. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers the main return fields, the key input distinction, and an important data-freshness caveat. It is slightly incomplete regarding how distributor factors into the lookup and what happens when no identifying parameter is supplied, but given the simple read-only nature, it is largely sufficient.

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 description adds value by distinguishing item_code (stocked item) from sku (raw catalog row), which the schema does not explain. However, the distributor parameter is left entirely implicit, and the description does not clarify whether item_code and sku are mutually exclusive or what happens when both are null, despite all parameters being optional 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 identifies the tool's domain as per-item economics, enumerating specific outputs (cost, MAP, MSRP, suggested sell price, cached quantity, restricted states, block flags). It does not use an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'gets,' and it does not name a sibling tool to distinguish against, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 gives partial usage direction by explaining to pass item_code for a stocked item or sku for a raw catalog row. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as distributor_catalog_search, distributor_check_availability, or item_stock, nor does it provide exclusions.

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