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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description correctly aligns by stating it 'returns' data. It adds value by specifying the exact content (categories, inputs, quote-to-order flow) and notes availability 'over this server,' giving context beyond the annotation. No contradiction.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word earns its place, and the most important content (what is returned) appears immediately.

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 zero-parameter, read-only capability discovery tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent needs to know before calling it. It could optionally describe the return format, but that is not essential for invoking the tool correctly.

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 and the schema coverage is trivially 100% (empty properties). There is nothing for the description to explain about parameters, so the baseline 4 applies.

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 a concrete resource ('Reqo's supported categories, accepted inputs, and the quote-to-order flow'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like get_quote or submit_rfq, which focus on individual quotes/orders rather than overall capabilities.

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 is a discovery tool—useful for understanding what Reqo offers before engaging the quote flow—but it does not explicitly say 'use this before submitting an RFQ' or mention alternatives. Sibling names suggest the workflow, but the guidance is left to inference.

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