List RFQs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond these: pagination behavior ('response reports how many pages remain'), read-only reassurance, and likely error statuses (401, 403, 404). This fully informs the agent of side effects and failure modes.

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 comprehensive and well-structured, front-loading the primary purpose. It includes useful context like API category and endpoint. A few statements are redundant with annotations/schema (e.g., read-only), but overall each sentence adds value for selection and invocation.

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 8 parameters, detailed schema descriptions, and strong annotations, the description covers the return type (JSON array), pagination, error handling, and the use case. Absence of an output schema means details about RFQ object fields are missing, but for a list operation with this level of context, it is sufficiently 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes all parameters clearly. The description mentions 'page and per_page control pagination' and lists required parameters, but these merely restate schema fields without adding new semantics. It does not elaborate on filter formats or relationships beyond what the schema 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 RFQs in a specified Project and Contract,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like show_rfq by saying 'Use this to discover RFQs or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.'

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'Use this to discover RFQs or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the guidance is strong enough for an agent to decide between list and show operations.

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