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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring the safety profile, the description adds genuine context beyond annotations: the authentication requirement (a token issued by create_rfq) and the fact that results are partial/in-progress ('received so far'). It stops short of describing pagination or result volume.

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 short sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, and the prerequisite requirement follows immediately after.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and auth prerequisites adequately. Only minor gaps remain (no mention of result format or growth of matches/quotes over time).

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 0%, so the schema offers only bare types for rfq_id and token. The description partially compensates by explaining that token is the one returned by create_rfq and that rfq_id identifies the RFQ, but it gives no format or value constraints for either.

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 ('Read') and resource ('the matches and the quotes received so far for an RFQ'), plus the scope that it applies to an RFQ the caller created. This is clearly distinguishable from the write-side siblings create_rfq, submit_quote, and submit_quote_request.

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 prerequisite is stated ('Needs the rfq_id and the token returned by create_rfq'), which implicitly positions this as the follow-up to create_rfq. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance and no exclusions, so usage is only implied rather than directed.

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