submit_machining_rfq

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

Annotations indicate write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and no destruction. Description adds valuable context: lightweight compliance screen, human follow-up, and clarification that it's not a binding contract. No contradictions.

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?

Four sentences, each providing distinct value: purpose, compliance step, legal disclaimer, and requirement. No 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?

Covers the workflow and non-contract nature well for a submission tool. Lacks mention of expected response or confirmation, but overall adequate given complexity and no output schema.

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 coverage is 100% with basic descriptions. The tool description adds emphasis on 'legal entity' but does not elaborate on parameter format or constraints beyond schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'submit', the resource 'machining/testing RFQ', and includes distinctive details like compliance screening and human follow-up. Differentiates from sibling tools which are all read-only queries.

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?

Specifies when to use (submitting an RFQ) and important caveats (not a contract/quote, no payment, must provide legal entity). Does not explicitly list alternatives, but siblings are all read-only so context is clear.

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