Get Rfqs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no pagination behavior, no note that limit is capped at 100, no indication that userFilter only permits SELF, and no hint at result ordering or completeness.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficiently sized, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than optimal economy.

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 read-only list tool with full annotation coverage and a fully described nested schema, the minimum is nearly met. Still missing is anything about pagination semantics (cursor + limit interplay) and result shape, which matter for a capped, paginated list endpoint.

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 description coverage is 100% and the nested query object itself documents 'Query parameters and pagination; use the exact field names shown.'. The description's phrase 'query filters' adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb 'Returns' plus resource 'RFQs' makes the basic operation clear, and 'matching the query filters' indicates it is a filtered list. However, it gives no differentiation from close siblings such as get_rfq_user_id, get_rfq_trades, or get_quotes, so an agent must infer which RFQ-related read tool applies.

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 contains no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Nothing indicates whether it returns only the caller's RFQs (the schema's userFilter enum suggests USER_FILTER_SELF) or others'.

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