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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the caller must be a manufacturer's agent and needs the supplier token, and it discloses the return payload's composition. No rate limits or pagination notes, but for a single-object read that is minor.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the audience qualifier and the token prerequisite, then the payload contents. Dense but every clause carries information; the em-dash enumeration is efficient.

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 shoulders the burden of describing what is returned, and it does so concretely. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and the audience/auth caveat, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only sibling disambiguation is left implicit.

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 coverage is 50%: supplier_token is documented in the schema as a header fallback, and rfq_id is self-evident. The description echoes the token requirement but adds no syntax, format, or lookup guidance for rfq_id beyond what is structured. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('one request in full') and enumerates the returned contents — spec, missing items, match rationale, file links, conversation. It is clear what the tool does. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling get_rfq, which an agent could easily confuse with this one.

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 audience qualifier ('For a manufacturer's agent') and the token note give implied usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as get_rfq, get_rfq_requirements, or get_rfq_thread. The agent must infer which request-reading sibling applies.

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