List RFQ Quotes

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds valuable behavioral details: returns a JSON array, pagination via page/per_page with reporting of remaining pages, and common error statuses (401, 403, 404). It reinforces safety with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore' and clarifies the parent record requirement.

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 longer but every sentence adds value, covering purpose, usage, prerequisites, return format, pagination, error handling, and endpoint info. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose, though the return-type statement is slightly repetitive.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the return type (JSON array) and pagination reporting. It also covers error handling, required parameters, and the API context, making it sufficiently complete for a read-only list tool with strong annotations.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the semantic requirement that rfq_id must reference an existing parent record, but otherwise does not elaborate on parameter meanings beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Return a list of all Quotes in a specified RFQ' with a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on quotes within an RFQ and mentions use cases like discovering quotes and looking up IDs.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to discover RFQ quotes or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It also gives a prerequisite, 'rfq_id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first,' which effectively points to an alternative (the list RFQs tool). However, it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it.

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