get_rfp_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry safety/behavioral information, and it does by marking the operation as read-only, free, and suitable for continuous polling, plus describing deterministic bid ordering. It does not cover auth requirements or output/error envelopes, but the key non-mutating behavior is transparent.

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 compact, front-loads the cost marker, and each line earns its place: cost, purpose, polling guidance, and parameter meaning. There is no filler or redundant detail beyond a minor repetition of 'free.'

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 simple tool with one required parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description still explains what is returned (statuses, specs, bids), the ordering, and when it is safe to call. Missing edge-case details such as empty bid lists are minor and unlikely to prevent 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 schema only provides the property name and type, while the description adds that rfp_id identifies the target RFP to inspect. This is adequate for a single required parameter, though it does not give format, provenance, or an example value.

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 ('Retrieves') with a concrete resource and enumerates the returned data: current status values (OPEN, MATCHED, EXPIRED), specifications, and supplier bids ranked by price. This goes well beyond the tool name and clearly separates it from status tools aimed at other entities.

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?

Calling it a 'Free read endpoint for continuous polling' clearly signals the intended polling use case and that repeated invocations are expected. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools or state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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