getRfqs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and description adds non-real-time behavior, rate limit, cursor pagination, sort order, parameter precedence, and time restriction. No contradictions.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, but the 'Agent hint' paragraph largely repeats the previous statements about historical data, real-time alternative, cursor pagination, and rfqLinkId's 3-month constraint. This redundancy keeps it from being as tight as it could be.

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 6-parameter read-only query with no output schema, the description covers filtering, pagination, sorting, rate limit, and the key parameter constraints. Everything needed to choose and call this tool versus the live sibling is present.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains the meaning of rfqId, rfqLinkId, traderType, status, and cursor, plus interaction rules. Limit is already documented in schema with default/min/max.

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?

States it queries historical RFQs with optional filtering by ID, trader type, and status. Distinguishes itself from the real-time variant by explicitly labeling this as historical, which separates it from getRfqsRealtime among the siblings.

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?

Explicitly says not real-time and directs to 'Get RFQs (real-time) endpoint' for live data. Also provides condition rules: rfqId takes precedence if both supplied, and rfqLinkId is invalid when traderType is 'quote'.

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