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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description adds value by disclosing the required access-key credential and the fact that a status history is returned alongside the current state. It stops short of describing failure behavior for an invalid key or the response shape.

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. What the tool returns and its lifecycle values come first; the credential prerequisite follows. Every clause 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no prose, and the description still flags the status history. Credentials, lifecycle states, and the upstream dependency on submit_rfq are all covered; only error/invalid-key behavior is left unstated, which is minor for a read-only lookup.

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% – the only structured hint is an example value for 'id'. The description compensates well by explaining where both parameters come from: the id of the submitted RFQ and the key extracted from the 'key=' portion of status_url returned by submit_rfq.

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?

Names the specific resource ('a submitted RFQ') and what it returns (status plus status history), even enumerating the lifecycle states. It is clearly distinct from submit_rfq, which it references as the credential source, though differentiation from the other siblings rests on the tool name rather than the description.

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 explicitly ('Needs the id and the access key returned by submit_rfq'), which is real usage guidance for the submit-then-check flow. However, no alternative or when-not-to-use condition is given, so selection guidance is only implied by the workflow.

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