Get Export Options For Existing RFI

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that it returns file contents or download URL, which is useful but does not disclose additional traits like authentication requirements or rate limits. No contradiction with 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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence adds value: purpose, usage guidance, return type, and additional context (params, API location). No waste.

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?

Given good annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description covers purpose, return type, and API endpoint. However, it omits pagination details (page, per_page parameters are present in schema but not explained in description). Minor gap considering moderate complexity.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema itself documents all parameters. The description repeats the required parameters and adds endpoint path context, but does not provide new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 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 clearly states the verb 'get' and resource 'export options for an existing RFI', differentiating it from siblings like 'create_advanced_export_for_existing_rfi' or 'show_rfi'. It specifies the action and resource unambiguously.

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?

The description provides context on when to use the tool ('fetch full details of a specific RFI records by its identifier') and lists required parameters, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it. Lacks guidance on when to prefer this over other RFI-related tools.

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