get_rfq_list

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, rate limits, or pagination behavior. The description is minimal and assumes the agent understands the tool's impact.

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 very short, but it is concise and front-loaded. However, it lacks any contextual sentences or structure beyond parameter definitions, making it minimally adequate.

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?

With many sibling tools and no output schema, the description fails to specify the return format, data contained in the list, or any constraints (pagination, ordering). The tool is under-described for its complexity.

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 description adds meaning to parameters beyond the schema by explaining 'rfq_id' as a filter and 'limit' as number of records with default 50. Since schema has 0% description coverage, this is valuable.

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 'Get RFQ list' which provides a verb and resource, but is vague and does not distinguish from many sibling tools like get_rfq_config, get_rfq_quote_list, or get_rfq_trade_list. The type of RFQ list (user's own, market?) is unclear.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Lacks context on scope, prerequisites, or intended use cases, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and parameters.

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