respond_to_rfq

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses the side effect (opens a private deal thread), the return value (threadId), and the commitment semantics ('your quote is your acceptance ... this tool accepts it for you with your hashlock'). It omits whether the response is retractable, how funds/hashlock are actually committed, and any auth requirements, leaving some behavioral risk undisclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and return value, then the high-risk price semantics, then the commitment consequence — a sensible ordering. The mid-sentence parenthetical about hashlocks is dense but earns its place by explaining why no separate acceptance step is needed.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: side effect, return handle, unit semantics, and post-acceptance state. It leaves open edge cases (multiple responses per RFQ, validity bounds on price, failure modes) that an agent would want to know.

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 only 50%, but the description fully compensates for the undocumented-critical parameter by clarifying price is the TOTAL quote-asset amount for the whole base amount, not per-unit — a unit ambiguity the schema alone would not resolve. rfq_id remains undocumented in both places, though its uuid type and provenance (get_rfq/list_open_rfqs) make it inferable.

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 verb and resource ('Respond to an open RFQ with your price') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the downstream tools it feeds (negotiate/deal_status) and by contrast with create_rfq implicit in 'open RFQ'. An agent knows exactly what action this performs without opening the schema.

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 'open RFQ' scopes usage and the closing note tells the agent this is the initiator-side action, seeding the alternative path (creator accepts). It also routes follow-up work to negotiate and deal_status. It stops short of explicitly stating exclusions, e.g. what to do if the RFQ is already closed or if you are the creator (cancel_rfq/my_rfqs).

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