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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds what the call returns -- required vs. recommended items and their accepted values -- which is behavioral content the annotations cannot provide.

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 filler. The return description comes first and the usage constraint second, which is the correct front-loading for a prerequisite lookup.

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 carries the burden of explaining the return shape and does so at a high level (required/recommended items with accepted values). For a single-enum, read-only tool whose annotations cover safety, that is nearly sufficient, though the structure of the returned items is not spelled out.

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%, but the single parameter is a self-explanatory process enum with 17 industry values, so little compensation is required. The phrase "a given process" adds no meaning beyond what the enum already conveys.

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 resource and its payload: the required and recommended items, with accepted values, that a factory needs in order to quote a given process. That is far more informative than a restatement of the title. It does not, however, differentiate itself from adjacent lookups such as get_design_rules or check_design.

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?

"Read this before create_rfq so the request is complete" gives an explicit ordering condition and names the sibling it feeds. There is no when-not guidance or mention of other alternatives, but the sequencing instruction is unambiguous.

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