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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), the description discloses a critical two-step approval model: nothing mutates until a human approves the exact request in Settings > MCP and execute_approved_action runs, and business workflow approvals always apply. That is genuinely useful context an agent would otherwise miss.

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 approval sentences earn their place, but the opening generic sentence and the tautological "Create rfi" restate the name without adding information. It is not bloated, but the front-loading could be sharper.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and annotations plus the approval note cover the safety profile. However, for a tool with a deep nested payload at 0% description coverage, the description says nothing about the meaningful fields (siteId scoping, category/priority enums, visibility flags), leaving an agent to infer semantics from names alone.

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 0% on a single 'data' object with ~28 nested properties, and the description only says required fields are validated by the application without naming which fields matter (siteId, title, question) or explaining enums like category/priority or flags like isInternalOnly/visibleToVendorIds. Field names are partly self-describing, but the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 specific verb+resource ("Create rfi") tied to RetailHardHat rfis records, which cleanly separates it from get_rfi/list_rfis/update_rfi by name. It doesn't explicitly call out the sibling it is not, but the create operation is unambiguous.

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?

"Use this when working with RetailHardHat rfis records" gives implied context but no explicit when-to-use vs create_rfi_comment or update_rfi. The approval note (no change until execute_approved_action is called) implicitly defines the workflow, but alternatives are never named.

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