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.