submit_machining_rfq

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false. The description adds valuable context: the tool runs a compliance screen, registers for human follow-up, and does not take payment. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentences, each with clear purpose. Front-loaded with the core action, then compliance and non-contract clarifications. No unnecessary words.

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 12 parameters (8 required) and no output schema, the description adequately explains the workflow, key steps, and a critical prerequisite. It provides enough context for an AI agent to determine when and how to use the tool.

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 the schema already documents all 12 parameters. The description adds marginal value by emphasizing the need for a legal entity, which aligns with the 'company' parameter. No additional parameter details are provided beyond what the schema offers.

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 states a specific verb ('Submit') and resource ('machining/testing RFQ'), and differentiates from sibling tools that are get/list/search operations. It clearly outlines the process: compliance screen and registration for human follow-up.

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 tells when to use (submitting an RFQ) and provides a clear prerequisite ('You must provide the legal entity behind the request'). It also clarifies what the tool does not do (not a contract/quotation, no payment). Explicit alternatives are not listed, but sibling tools imply different purposes.

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