Reqo Supply Quote Desk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that accepting creates an order and payment link, that the buyer must complete the link, and that settled payment confirms the order. It still omits authorization requirements, error behavior, and whether the quote is locked or reversible.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the return behavior and confirmation condition. No 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?

For a two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential return information (order_id and payment link) and the payment-settled confirmation rule. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it omits error cases and permissions.

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%, so the schema already documents rfq_id and confirm. The description's 'ready quote' phrasing adds a precondition but no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for high coverage.

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 ('Accepts') and resource ('ready quote'), and it clarifies the resulting artifacts ('order_id and a secure payment link'). This differentiates it from sibling read tools like get_quote and from submit_rfq.

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?

It gives a clear precondition: the quote must be status 'ready.' It does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_quote or describe when not to use it, but the context for use is clear.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Returns' implies a read-only operation, and the description usefully discloses that fulfillment updates are appended to the record over time (a mutation-by-drift behavior) and that invoice links are included, but it omits auth requirements, rate limits, and whether status transitions are delayed or cached.

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 sentences with no filler; the return contents are front-loaded and the behavioral note about fulfillment updates follows compactly.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does the necessary work of naming the returned fields and the evolving fulfillment record. It is largely complete for a one-parameter read, though it stops short of addressing error cases (e.g., unknown order_id) or freshness of the status.

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?

A single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents order_id and its origin. The description adds no syntax, format, or provenance detail beyond what the schema states, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 ('get_order' returns order payment status), and enumerates the returned fields (payment state, amount, invoice link), which separates it from get_quote and accept_quote. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The only workflow hint ('order_id returned by accept_quote') lives in the schema, not the description, so the agent must infer that this is the post-acceptance status check.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does real work by enumerating the four status states and what each means (e.g. 'ready' includes total and line pricing), which is genuine behavioral context. However, it omits error behavior for unknown/expired ids, auth requirements, and whether the call is a safe read.

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 core purpose front-loaded and the status enumeration appended. No filler, though the status list makes sentence two dense.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by spelling out the returned status values and what accompanies 'ready'. Complete enough for a one-parameter read tool, though error and missing-quote cases are unaddressed.

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 single rfq_id is already documented as 'the rfq_id returned by submit_rfq', so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the parameter itself.

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 ('Returns the current state of a quote'), which is clear and distinct from the sibling resources (order, supplier capabilities, rfq submission). It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast itself with any sibling, so it falls 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?

Usage is only implied: describing the status lifecycle suggests polling a quote after submit_rfq and before accept_quote, but the description never says when to call it or when not to. No prerequisites, no alternative tools named.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It accurately indicates a read-only behavior by saying 'Returns', which is helpful. However, it does not disclose whether authentication is required, whether the response is static, or any details about what the returned flow actually entails.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the main verb and resource, with no filler or repeated information from the title. Every word contributes meaningful content.

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 parameterless discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential information an agent needs: what categories, inputs, and flow details are exposed. It stops short of describing the exact response structure, but that is not critical for correct invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema supplies no parameter information. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than on parameter details, which is the best possible treatment for a parameterless tool.

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 tool returns Reqo's supported categories, accepted inputs, and the quote-to-order flow. This is a distinct, specific verb+resource combination that separates it from sibling tools like get_quote, submit_rfq, and accept_quote.

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 implies this tool is used to discover supplier capabilities before engaging in the quote flow, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusions. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer the intended use, but the guidance is not explicit.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is non-binding and incurs no charge, which is critical for an agent deciding to call it. It also states the return of an rfq_id and the need to poll, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention any side effects like record creation or reversibility.

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 sentences, no fluff. The main action is front-loaded, followed by the follow-up action and behavior. Every word earns its place.

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?

While the description covers the core flow (submit, then poll) and the non-binding nature, it leaves out guidance on optional parameters and the exact response format beyond the rfq_id. Given the low schema coverage and lack of annotations, a more complete description would explain the purpose of fields like account_number, context, and needed_by, and clarify the expected output.

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 only 38%, with most optional fields (company, needed_by, ship_to_zip, contact_name) lacking descriptions in the schema. The description does not elaborate on any of these fields, leaving the agent without guidance on their meaning or usage. It only mentions 'parts list' which maps to lines, but does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 clear verb ('Submits'), the resource ('parts list for a wholesale quote'), and the outcome ('returns an rfq_id'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_quote and accept_quote by indicating it's the submission step, so an agent can readily tell when to use it.

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?

It provides explicit follow-up instructions: 'Poll get_quote(rfq_id) until status is ready.' This tells the agent the immediate next step. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like accept_quote, so it's slightly incomplete but still useful.

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