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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds only a field enumeration and says nothing about pagination, default limit, search behavior, or project scoping. It therefore adds little behavioral context beyond the structured annotations.

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 description is a single short sentence with no wasted words, so it is concise. However, it is structured as a noun phrase rather than a verb-led definition, and its terseness leaves important list behavior unstated.

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 four-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description should explain pagination, filtering, and what is returned. It only lists RFI fields, omitting how limit/cursor/search/project_id affect results. The annotations cover the safety profile, but the description does not fill the remaining behavioral gaps.

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 75%, with cursor, search and project_id well documented in the schema; limit is self-explanatory through its default and bounds. The description does not explain limit, cursor, search, or project_id at all. With most parameters already handled by the schema, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource (RFIs) and enumerates fields such as question, project, dates, answer and status. However, it never states the operation is a list/search, and it does not distinguish this from get_rfi or create_rfi. The purpose is inferable from the name and title, but the description itself is vague about what the tool does.

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 guidance on when to use list_rfis versus get_rfi or the other list_* siblings, and no mention of filtering or prerequisites. The agent gets no explicit usage conditions from the description.

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