Show RFQ Quote

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the API endpoint and category (Construction Financials > Commitments), but does not provide additional behavioral context such as auth requirements or rate limits. The term 'Commitments' is inconsistent with the tool name.

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 four sentences and generally efficient, covering purpose, usage, return type, required params, and API reference. However, it repeats 'Commitments' twice incorrectly and could be slightly more concise.

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?

The description provides the endpoint path and API area, but does not explain optional pagination parameters (page, per_page) or the structure of the returned JSON. The inconsistency with 'Commitments' detracts from completeness. With no output schema, more return detail would be beneficial.

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, so the schema already explains all parameters. The description only reiterates the required parameters without adding new semantic meaning or relationships between them.

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 information about a specified Quote in a specified RFQ, but it incorrectly refers to 'Commitments' instead of 'Quote' in two places, causing minor confusion. Among siblings like create_rfq_quote and list_rfq_quotes, the tool is distinct as a read operation.

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 implies usage by listing required parameters and stating 'Use this to fetch the full details', but it does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives like list_rfq_quotes or provide when-not-to-use guidance. No exclusions or alternative tool names are given.

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