my_rfqs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that results are scoped to the caller's private orders and include statuses, but it does not state that this is read-only, whether authentication is required, pagination behavior, or return shape.

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 a single short sentence with the scope ('Your own') front-loaded and no filler. The slash construction 'RFQs / private orders' is slightly loose but does not obscure meaning.

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 parameterless retrieval tool, the description says what is returned at a high level: the caller's own RFQs/private orders and their statuses. Without an output schema, it does not specify the result structure, fields, or pagination, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent that needs to interpret results.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for 0 params is 4. Nothing in the description contradicts the empty schema.

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 identifies the resource as the caller's own RFQs/private orders and indicates statuses are included. It implicitly distinguishes from list_open_rfqs by saying 'your own,' but lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'retrieve,' leaving list-vs-detail slightly ambiguous.

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 phrase 'Your own' implies scope and contrasts with public/open RFQ tools like list_open_rfqs, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus get_rfq, list_open_rfqs, or my_deals. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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