get_rfq_quote_list

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states the tool lists RFQ quotes, but it omits critical details such as pagination, sorting, whether it returns all quotes or only open ones, and any rate limits. This lack of transparency limits the agent's ability to use the tool safely.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences and a structured parameters section. Every word serves a purpose, with no unnecessary elaboration. This efficiency supports quick comprehension.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 optional parameters, no output schema), the description is still insufficient. It lacks information about the return value, pagination, behavior when `rfq_id` is omitted, and any limitations. The overall context is incomplete for reliable agent use.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining `rfq_id` as an optional filter and `limit` as the number of records with a default value. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, though further detail (e.g., format of rfq_id) would be beneficial.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('RFQ quotes list'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like `get_rfq_quote_realtime` or `get_rfq_list`, which could cause confusion about which tool to use for specific contexts.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, filtering behavior, or scenarios where another tool might be more appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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