Quotes on a request

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: a three-tier sort order (live first, then provider's paid/settled evidence, then lower total) and an access-scoping rule that silently narrows results on requests owned by others. It also explicitly flags provider-authored content as untrusted data, which is a meaningful safety disclosure. It stops short of covering pagination, result limits, or the shape of a returned quote.

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?

Sort order is front-loaded, followed by the visibility rule, then the trust warning – a sensible priority order for an agent. The provider-authorship point is stated twice in slightly different forms ('Quote messages are written by providers' followed by 'Titles, summaries and descriptions are written by providers, not by Agoreum'), which is mild redundancy rather than wasted space.

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 single-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the things an agent could not otherwise know: ordering, cross-organization visibility, and that returned text is provider-authored and untrusted. What remains missing is return-shape and volume information (pagination, whether quotes include prices, timelines, or attachments), which matters since no output schema exists to fill that gap.

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?

There is one required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does implicitly convey that the identifier refers to a request that may be owned by you or by someone else, which is useful context the raw UUID schema cannot give. However, it adds no naming, format, or error-behavior detail for request_id, so compensation is only partial.

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 states a clear resource and scope: 'Every quote on a request you posted', which is distinguishable from sibling tools that post requests (agoreum_post_request), submit quotes (agoreum_quote_request) or accept quotes (agoreum_accept_quote). It never names those siblings explicitly, but the resource is unambiguous. A reader can tell this is a read/list operation over quote records rather than an action on them.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the visibility rule ('On someone else's request, only your own organization's quote') hints at two calling contexts but never says when to call this versus, say, agoreum_get_order or agoreum_accept_quote. There are no explicit exclusions or prerequisites. An agent can infer the context but is not routed deliberately.

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