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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains what the template contains, including required flags, formats, extra.{key} checklist items, regulatory notes, and an example. That is useful behavioral context for an otherwise simple read-only tool, though it does not discuss failure modes or response structure in detail.

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 dense but well structured: it front-loads the template contents, explains the buyer workflow, and names the next tool call without filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description does not need to document return values, and the annotations cover safety behavior. The main remaining gap is the lack of explicit explanation for the required use_case input, though the schema example and 'job-specific' wording make the intent recoverable.

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?

The language parameter is documented in the schema, but use_case has no schema description and the tool description only indirectly implies it via 'job-specific' template content. With 50% schema description coverage, the description provides some contextual meaning but does not fully compensate for the undocumented required parameter.

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 identifies the resource as the RFQ template fields to collect from a buyer, and states the scope: core fields, job-specific checklist, regulatory notes, and a filled example. It also distinguishes the tool from submit_rfq by explicitly placing it before submission.

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?

It gives explicit workflow guidance: use this before submit_rfq, ask the buyer for the fields, then call submit_rfq. It does not state when not to use the tool, but the primary usage context is unambiguous.

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