list_active_rfps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden alone. It usefully discloses that the call is free and that no out-of-band RFP ID is required, but omits permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior, and return characteristics for a list endpoint.

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 core purpose and then structured into Args for each parameter. It is slightly padded by a keyword list and a leading price banner, but remains readable and not excessively long.

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 two-parameter list tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, defaults, and enum values. Minor gaps remain around return format and pagination, but the core invocation information is present.

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 documents the status enum values ('OPEN', 'MATCHED', 'EXPIRED', 'CANCELLED'), their default of 'OPEN', and that limit is the maximum number of results with a default of 20; only limit bounds or pagination semantics are missing.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Discover/List') and resource ('active Requests for Proposal'), and distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_rfp_status by noting it does not require an out-of-band RFP ID. The mention of the multi-agent reverse auction market gives enough scope to identify it uniquely.

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?

Explicitly frames the tool for supplier agents browsing open RFPs and submitting competitive bids without first knowing an RFP ID. It gives clear usage context but does not state when-not-to-use or name alternative discovery tools such as list_task_bounties.

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