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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does not disclose auth/permission requirements, what happens on success, whether the RFQ can be cancelled (pax.cancel_order?), or how expiration works despite a ttl_sec field. The bare mechanism hint ('asks MMs to bid') is the only behavioral signal provided.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and zero filler. It is appropriately sized for what little it conveys, though the brevity reflects under-specification as much as efficiency.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. It omits parameter meaning, pricing constraints, TTL behavior, and success/failure semantics, leaving real gaps an agent must guess at.

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 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate but essentially does not. It alludes to 'size' and 'MMs' but says nothing about side, market_id, max_price/min_price, or the ttl_sec range and default, leaving most parameters unexplained.

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 (create) and resource (RFQ), and even expands the acronym and explains the mechanism ('asks MMs to bid for a specific size'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling pax.rfq_accept, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to the complementary pax.rfq_accept or to alternatives like pax.place_order. The 'asks MMs to bid' phrase hints at intent but stops short of telling the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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