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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-schema context: the RFI-module prerequisite and the underlying GET endpoint, confirming this is a scoped read against a specific API path. It stops short of describing pagination mechanics or return volume.

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 returned fields, prerequisite, filter set and endpoint are packed into three short fragments with zero filler, and the resource definition is front-loaded. The telegraphic style is slightly terse but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, enumerating the returned fields is exactly the right compensation, and the module requirement plus endpoint round out an agent's needs for a nine-parameter read tool. The pagination cursor workflow lives only in the schema, which is acceptable but leaves a small gap for first-time callers.

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% and every one of the nine parameters is documented in the schema, so the schema carries the load. The description's filter summary (status, assignee, text, overdue, dates) restates parameters without adding format or interaction detail, 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?

The description names the resource (RFIs of a project) and enumerates the returned fields (number, name, question, answer, status, assignee, due date), which makes the tool's data domain unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly state the verb 'list' in prose or contrast itself with the sibling listers like fieldwire_list_submittals, but the resource specificity is strong enough to separate it.

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?

'Needs the RFI module' states a real prerequisite, and 'Filter by status, assignee, text, overdue or dates' implies the read/search context. However, there is no when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of the pagination workflow, and no routing to an alternative if the RFI module is absent.

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