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.