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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses sort order (newest first), filter scope (private + all statuses), and pagination ('cursor-paginated'). It does not state auth requirements beyond 'your own' or mention rate limits, which keeps it from a 5 for an unannotated tool.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: scope, then the timeout-recovery use case, then pagination. The most decision-relevant fact (private/all-status scope) is front-loaded.

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?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers scope, ordering, pagination, and the key recovery scenario. What an agent still cannot learn from it — page size behavior and what fields an RFQ record contains — are the remaining gaps.

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?

Both parameters have 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate: 'cursor-paginated' explains the cursor param, but the limit param (1-100) is never addressed, nor is the page size default. Partial compensation for a two-parameter schema, hence the middle score.

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 (implicit list) and resource (your own RFQs) with explicit scope: private ones and every status included, newest first. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling list_open_rfqs by clarifying '(the board shows only public open ones)', so an agent can pick between them without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a concrete, non-obvious trigger — 'check here before re-posting an RFQ whose create_rfq call timed out' — which directly prevents a duplicate-write error. It also implicitly excludes the board-style listing. It loses a point only because the alternative is referred to as 'the board' rather than named as list_open_rfqs, leaving the routing slightly to inference.

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