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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the result ordering ('newest first') and that lane counts are included. It does not address pagination behavior despite a limit parameter existing.

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 tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and sort/return details appended. Every phrase earns its place; nothing is redundant.

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 list tool with annotations carrying the safety profile and a fully documented schema, the description covers scope, ordering, and return content. Lacking only explicit pagination behavior, which is minor given the documented limit parameter.

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%, so both status and limit are already documented with defaults and constraints. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail 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?

Specific verb+resource: 'List the signed-in user's RFP documents,' which distinguishes it from the singular get_rfp and the write-oriented create_rfp. It adds sort order ('newest first') and return content ('lane counts'), though it does not explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with.

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 — an agent gathers its own RFPs, presumably to then call get_rfp on one — but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of alternatives like get_rfp, and no exclusions. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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