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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior: the RFQ is quarantined and no automatic contact will occur. However, it does not explain what quarantine means operationally, what side effects exist, or whether the RFQ can later be released.

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 a single tight phrase with no filler or repetition. Every word adds meaning ('quarantined', 'without automatic contact'). It is very concise, though it may be too terse for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description is far too incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters (one a nested object), no parameter descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema. It does not explain required concepts, parameter usage, return values, or the quarantine lifecycle.

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% and the description provides zero information about offer_id, demand_id, requirements, or requester_agent. An agent has no help understanding what values are expected or how the parameters relate to the RFQ creation.

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 action ('Create') on a specific resource ('RFQ') and adds two meaningful qualifiers ('quarantined', 'without automatic contact') that set it apart from a generic request_quote tool. It does not fully define 'quarantined', and the qualifiers are not enough to differentiate it from every sibling without deeper inspection.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as publish_demand or find_counterparty. No mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or situations where this tool should be avoided.

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