List RFQs

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds valuable context: 'Returns a paginated JSON array of Commitments. Use page and per_page to control pagination; the response includes pagination metadata.' It also references filtering capabilities via an external link. This goes beyond annotations to explain behavior.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with the main purpose, then provides usage guidance, followed by behavioral details. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. The link to filtering documentation is appropriately placed.

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 8 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, scope, and usage patterns (pagination, filtering). It references external filtering documentation and explains return format. It is sufficiently complete for a list endpoint.

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% with detailed descriptions. The description reinforces the importance of required parameters (project_id, contract_id) and explains pagination parameters (page, per_page) in context. It also mentions filtering generally. While it doesn't detail each parameter, it adds usage guidance that supplements the schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Return a list of all RFQs in a specified Project and Contract.' It identifies the specific resource (RFQs), the required scope (project and contract), and distinguishes it from other list tools by focusing on RFQs. The inclusion of use cases (enumerate Commitments, find IDs, filter) further clarifies its purpose.

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?

The description provides explicit usage context: 'Use this to enumerate Commitments when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' It also notes required parameters. Although it does not mention alternatives or when not to use, the guidance is clear and directly addresses typical scenarios.

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