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

With no annotations, the description conveys key behaviors: status values, requirement for quoted_unit_jpy when received, and the reflection into mu_quote's est_unit_jpy for valid received quotes. Account scoping is mentioned. It lacks details on idempotency or side effects for other statuses, but overall provides solid transparency.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every phrase adds value. No unnecessary words or repetition of schema details. Excellent conciseness.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and the reflection behavior, the description covers the main use case but omits details on the return value, handling of other statuses (sent/expired), and the note parameter. It is adequate for basic usage but could be more thorough.

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 57% (4 of 7 parameters described). The description adds context for quoted_unit_jpy (required when received) and valid_until (ISO date), and mentions moq/lead_time_days without extra detail. No value added for note or other parameters. At moderate coverage, the description partially compensates but does not fully cover all parameters.

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 clearly states the tool records a supplier's RFQ reply with specific fields. It mentions the context 'after a factory replies', which distinguishes it from RFQ creation or listing tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like mu_rfq_create or mu_rfq_list, thus a 4 is appropriate.

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 provides clear timing ('after a factory replies') and conditions (status set to received requires quoted_unit_jpy). It hints at when to use but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives among many siblings. The reflection behavior gives context, but missing exclusion guidance prevents a higher score.

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