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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job: it declares read-only and idempotent behavior, no side effects, required APS scopes (data:read, account:read), rate limits, pagination limits, and per-error-code details. This goes far beyond typical tool descriptions.

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?

Although the description is somewhat long, it is well-structured with labeled sections (When to use, When NOT to use, APS scopes, Rate limits, Errors, Side effects). Every sentence carries useful information, and the core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

The description thoroughly covers operational context: scopes, rate limits, pagination, error handling, and side effects. However, since there is no output schema, it does not explicitly describe the return format or fields of the RFI list, which would be useful for an agent to fully anticipate the response.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds a minor note about the 'b.' prefix for project_id in the error section and confirms status is optional, but it does not substantially expand on the parameter semantics already present in the input schema.

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 opens with 'List and filter RFIs from a single ACC project (limit 50 per call)', which clearly specifies the action, resource, and scope. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating 'Do not use for issues (use acc_list_issues) or document search (use acc_search_documents).'

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?

A dedicated 'When to use' section provides concrete examples like reviewing open RFIs or counting outstanding ones, and a 'When NOT to use' section names alternatives (acc_list_issues, acc_search_documents). This gives explicit guidance on selecting the correct tool.

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