List RFQ Responses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and non-destructive. Description adds that it returns a paginated JSON array with pagination metadata, but does not disclose further behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, rate limits). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Description is four sentences, all relevant and front-loaded with purpose. No redundant information. Every sentence contributes clear value.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return type (paginated JSON array) and pagination metadata. Parameters are fully covered. Lacks mention of errors or authentication, but annotations compensate for safety profile. Mostly complete for a list tool.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all five parameters. Description mentions required parameters and pagination usage ('Use page and per_page to control pagination'), but adds no new meaning beyond schema descriptions. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns a list of all Responses in a specified RFQ, with specific use cases (enumerating Commitments, finding IDs, filtering). Distinguishes from sibling 'list_rfqs' and 'show_rfq_response' by focusing on responses within an RFQ.

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?

Description explicitly states when to use the tool ('enumerate Commitments...paginated overview...find IDs...filter') and mentions pagination control. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context is clear. Alternative 'show_rfq_response' exists for single items.

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