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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by detailing the possible statuses and their meanings, including that 'ready' includes total and line pricing. This gives the agent a clear model of what the tool will return and how state evolves, though it does not cover error or not-found behavior.

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?

One focused sentence front-loads the core behavior and then efficiently enumerates all status values with their conditions. No filler or redundant repetition of the title or schema.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential return semantics and status values. It could be slightly more complete by noting what happens when the rfq_id is not found, but this is a minor gap.

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 100% and the rfq_id parameter is well-documented in the schema as coming from submit_rfq. The main description adds no further parameter detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('current state of a quote') and identifies the lookup key by rfq_id. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings that accept quotes, create RFQs, or fetch 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?

Usage is implied through the status lifecycle: an agent can infer this tool is for checking quote status after submit_rfq and before accept_quote. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use it versus alternatives, and no alternative tool is named.

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