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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the operation is asynchronous (requires polling) and non-binding with no charge. It also states the specific completion signal ('ready'). No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 carry all essential information: what the tool does, what it returns, how to follow up, and a key commercial caveat. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

The description covers the full request lifecycle: submit, obtain rfq_id, poll until ready, and no charge at this step. Since there is no output schema, the explicit return value is sufficient. It does not discuss error cases or parameter prerequisites, but the schema covers required fields, and the high-level flow is complete enough 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?

Schema description coverage is only 38%, but the description does little to compensate. 'Parts list' loosely maps to the required 'lines' parameter, but there is no guidance on the other seven parameters, including required buyer_email and optional but meaningful fields like needed_by, ship_to_zip, and account_number.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Submits a parts list for a wholesale quote') and states the concrete outcome ('returns an rfq_id'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning this as the initiating step, while get_quote is the follow-up and accept_quote is the later binding step.

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 gives explicit follow-up guidance: poll get_quote(rfq_id) until status is 'ready'. The phrase 'Non-binding; no charge occurs at this step' clarifies that this is not the acceptance step. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use alternatives, but the intended workflow is clear.

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