List Available RFI Ball In Court Filter Options

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds context about pagination parameters and the endpoint path. However, it does not explain what 'ball in court' means or the structure of the returned JSON array beyond 'available filter values'.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. It is concise, though the second sentence introduces ambiguity. Each sentence adds information, but the second could be clearer.

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 the tool's simplicity and good annotations/schema coverage, the description provides necessary context: purpose, required parameter, and endpoint info. It could be improved by clarifying that it returns filter options, not records, but is largely complete.

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 for all three parameters, so the schema already documents parameters well. The description only restates project_id as required, adding no new semantic information beyond the 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 clearly states that it returns available RFI ball in court filter fields and options for a project. It specifies the resource and action, but the second sentence says 'enumerate RFI records' which could be misinterpreted as returning records rather than filter options. Differentiates from siblings by naming the specific filter field.

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 suggests using this tool to enumerate RFI records for a paginated overview, which is misleading because the tool returns filter options, not records. It does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternative tools for actual RFI listing.

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