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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses a significant non-obvious behavior: the submission is not sent directly to agencies but forwarded to a 'Phase 5 release-queue' where an operator manually releases it. This is valuable transparency beyond what the tool name suggests, though it omits other details like side effects or confirmation behavior.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a key workflow detail without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's complexity — 17 parameters, 12 required, no output schema, and no annotations — the description is far too sparse. It provides helpful workflow context (queue and manual release) but leaves the agent without essential information on required inputs, expected outcomes, or how to obtain values like selectedAgencyIds. It is not sufficient 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?

The description contains zero parameter-level information, while the schema covers none of the 17 parameters. With no descriptions for required fields like specialisms, budgetBand, timeline, or selectedAgencyIds, an agent has no guidance on how to populate the request. The description fails entirely to compensate for the schema's 0% coverage.

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 and resource: 'Dien een Request-For-Quote in bij marketingburos.nl' clearly states the action (submitting an RFQ) and the target platform. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_agency, get_agency_profile, and search_agencies, which are all query/read operations, making the submission intent unmistakable.

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 implicitly conveys when to use the tool: whenever an RFQ needs to be submitted. However, it offers no explicit guidance on alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use it, such as emphasizing that search tools should be used first to discover agencies before submitting. The queue/release detail hints at workflow but does not give clear usage criteria.

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