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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. Beyond the verb 'Publishes' it says nothing about whether the RFQ is durable, cancellable, or how 'atomic bilateral clearing' actually behaves — a critical gap for a marketplace-mutating call.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is dense with undefined terminology rather than redundant, so it earns its place but could be clearer.

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 12-parameter, 5-required mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is only minimally adequate. It omits the relationship to the geo360_b2a_* feasibility tools it references and to the geo360_acommerce_settle counterpart that follows an RFQ.

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 92%, so the schema already documents nearly all 12 parameters, which sets the baseline at 3. The phrase 'Links to Phase 1 feasibility contexts' loosely gestures at the optional *_id parameters (route_risk_id, customs_gate_id, price_context_id) but adds no new syntax or format detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Publishes a ... Request For Quote (RFQ)' — which is enough to separate it from settle, book_offer, and hold_offer siblings. However, qualifiers like 'sovereign' and 'atomic bilateral clearing' are jargon that don't sharpen the operational meaning for an agent.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given at all. The description never explains how an RFQ differs from the sibling actions geo360_book_offer or geo360_hold_offer, nor what prerequisite state (e.g. an existing feasibility context) must exist before publishing.

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