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 that the call opens a settlement thread, that the quote itself constitutes acceptance, that the deal is agreed upon requester acceptance, and the conditional follow-up via accept_terms with a hashlock. It still omits permission requirements, failure modes, or whether quotes can be revised or cancelled.

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 front-loaded with the action and scope, then moves efficiently through parameter semantics, business consequence, and conditional next steps. Every sentence adds distinct, useful information without redundancy.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, key parameter semantics, business consequence, and immediate follow-up behavior. It could be stronger by explicitly identifying the 'id' parameter and noting permission or error conditions, but it is largely complete for correct invocation.

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. It explains quoteAmount clearly as the total quote-asset amount in base units, which adds meaning beyond the '^\d+$' pattern. The 'id' parameter is only implicitly described as the RFQ identifier via context, not explicitly defined.

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 uses a specific verb ('Quote') and resource ('open RFQ') with an explicit scope ('maker'), so an agent knows what action is being taken. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from likely alternatives like propose_price or accept_proposal, leaving sibling selection to inference.

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 description implies usage for makers quoting open RFQs and gives a clear conditional next step: if the returned thread shows makerAccepted: false, call accept_terms with your hashlock. It does not state when to choose this over sibling tools or when not to use it, so guidance is present but incomplete.

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