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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does real work by defining the give/receive semantics of direction and the cross-field rule that private visibility requires askAmount, plus a format constraint. However, it omits mutation-side context an agent needs before writing: whether posting requires wallet proof or locked funds, that ttlSeconds makes the RFQ auto-expire, and whether the RFQ can be cancelled later (there is a cancel_rfq sibling).

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?

Three terse clauses, front-loaded with the core action, then the two highest-risk semantics (direction polarity and the private/askAmount dependency). No filler sentences, and the most error-prone detail is stated in the clearest form.

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?

This is a high-complexity trading write with 8 params, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must be self-sufficient and is not. It never explains targetAddress (presumably the counterparty for private RFQs), ttlSeconds behavior, what is returned on success (RFQ id?), or how asset IDs are formatted, leaving multiple blocking unknowns for a first-time caller.

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%, so the description must compensate for 8 bare parameters. It adds genuine meaning for direction, visibility, askAmount, and the amount format ('base-unit integer strings'), but leaves ttlSeconds, targetAddress, baseAssetId, and quoteAssetId entirely undefined — roughly half the surface is unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Post a trade request' — and pins the actor role with '(scope: taker)'. An agent can tell this creates a new RFQ, but the description never distinguishes it from siblings like quote_rfq, propose_price, or request_listing, so the differentiation must be inferred from the name.

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?

'Scope: taker' implies the situation (you are the one requesting a trade, not quoting one), which is useful but indirect. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of quote_rfq/propose_price, and no mention of prerequisites such as a proven wallet or funded balance.

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