Show RFQ

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds that it is a GET endpoint and returns a JSON object, but does not go beyond that. It does not clarify the role of pagination parameters (page, per_page) in a 'show' endpoint.

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 relatively short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The inclusion of the API reference line could be trimmed but is not overly verbose. One or two sentences could be combined.

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?

For a simple read tool, the description is incomplete. It does not address the optional pagination parameters and how they apply. The mention of 'Commitments' instead of 'RFQ' misleads about the exact resource. With no output schema, the description should clarify the return structure more.

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 all parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description only lists required parameters without adding new meaning. It does not explain the page/per_page parameters, which are present in the schema but may be irrelevant for a single-item fetch.

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 returns detailed info about a specific RFQ for a project and contract. However, later it refers to 'Commitments' which is a broader category and could cause confusion about the exact resource. This slightly reduces clarity.

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 tells when to use the tool: to fetch full details of a specific RFQ by identifier. It lists required parameters. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide comparison to sibling tools like list_rfqs or show_rfq_quote.

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