get_rfq

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses nothing: no permission/access requirements for a 'private order', no error behavior for a missing or unauthorized rfq_id, no indication of what 'details' includes. Only the read-only nature is implied by 'Details'.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero padding, but its brevity comes from omission rather than economy — there is simply very little content to structure.

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?

A single-param read tool with no output schema and no annotations needs the description to explain what is returned and any access constraints on private orders; neither is present. The definition is under-specified for its context.

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% for the single required parameter rfq_id. The phrase 'by id' merely restates the schema's parameter name and adds no format, source, or lookup semantics beyond what 'rfq_id: string(uuid)' already conveys.

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?

States a specific resource (one RFQ / private order) and scope (by id), which distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_open_rfqs and my_rfqs. It is clear but does not explicitly name the sibling boundary, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this vs alternatives — an agent must infer that this is the single-record fetch counterpart to the list tools. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no routing guidance.

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