get_rfq_quote_realtime

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

The description mentions 'real-time', hinting at live data, but does not elaborate on behavior such as polling frequency, data freshness, or any side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only provides minimal context beyond the action of getting quotes.

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 with only two sentences, efficiently stating purpose and parameter. No fluff, but it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the basics. However, it lacks context about return format, real-time specifics, and differentiation from similar siblings, making it only minimally complete.

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 explains that 'rfq_id' is an optional filter, adding semantic meaning beyond the schema's type and default. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates by clarifying the parameter's role, though it could mention format or behavior when omitted.

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 it retrieves RFQ quotes in real-time, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_rfq_realtime', which likely has a different purpose (getting RFQ data vs. quotes). This lack of distinction prevents a perfect score.

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 like 'get_rfq_realtime' or 'get_rfq_quote_list'. The description does not suggest scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate use case.

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