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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description's own contribution is naming the fields returned (question, dates, answer, status), which is useful context given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about not-found behavior or error cases.

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 short sentence fragment with zero filler and the distinguishing detail (what is returned) front-loaded. It is efficient, though the terseness crosses into under-specification rather than tight precision.

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?

This is a trivial one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema; the description names the salient returned fields, which is the main thing an agent needs to decide whether to call it. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% with a single documented parameter, and the schema already explains that rfi_id comes from list_rfis. The description adds no constraint, format, or validity detail beyond that, so this is the baseline case where the schema does all the work.

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 fragment 'One RFI with its question, dates, answer and status' does identify the resource and implies single-record retrieval (contrasting with the sibling list_rfis), but it supplies no verb and never explicitly says this is a fetch-by-id operation. An agent can infer the intent but must do the work itself.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus list_rfis, create_rfi, or any other sibling. The only routing hint ('rfi_id from list_rfis') lives in the schema property description, not the tool description, so the description itself provides no usage guidance.

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