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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two important traits: the endpoint is public with no signature required, and the output is rfqIds usable by bull_send_quote. It stops short of describing ordering, result limits, or whether the list is exhaustive, which are the remaining unknowns for a listing 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, front-loaded with the trigger condition, followed by the return payload and the exclusion. Every clause carries information an agent needs; no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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, zero-required read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers trigger, scope, auth posture, and the key return value. Missing only secondary details such as pagination or result ordering, which are minor at this complexity.

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 100%, so both chain (default Robinhood Chain) and token (optional contract filter) are already documented in structured form. The parenthetical in the description describes the RFQ record contents rather than clarifying the two input parameters, so it adds little meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Lists open requests for quotes on Bull" states a specific verb and resource, then enumerates the payload an RFQ carries (token, size in USD, window, buyer's price limit). The opening clause about selling/holding a token frames the reader's role, which cleanly separates this from the create/quote-answering siblings.

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?

"Use when you SELL or hold a token and want to find buyers" gives an explicit trigger condition, and "Not for finding market prices" supplies an explicit exclusion. It also hands off the next action by pointing at bull_send_quote for answering the returned rfqIds.

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