Show RFQ Quote

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only — it changes nothing in Procore.' It adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: error response details (401/403/404), return format ('single JSON object'), and the need to resolve parent records first. 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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded: purpose, usage, prerequisites, return value, read-only guarantee, error handling, required parameters, and API endpoint. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 show operation with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it returns, when to use it, how to prepare inputs, safety semantics, and failure modes. It is self-contained and 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%, so the schema documents all parameters. The description adds operational semantics by listing the required parameters as a group and noting that rfq_id and id 'must identify existing parent records' and should be resolved via the list tool. This is helpful context beyond the schema's basic type/identifier descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return detailed information about a specified Quote in a specified RFQ.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_rfq_quotes (which lists quotes) and create/update_rfq_quote by emphasizing 'when you already know which RFQ quote you want.'

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when you already know which RFQ quote you want and need its full field set.' It also provides actionable prerequisite guidance—'resolve them with the matching list tool first'—which directs the agent to the appropriate alternative for discovery.

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