List Available RFI Cost Code Options

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds that the response is paginated with metadata, which is useful but does not disclose additional behaviors beyond what annotations imply. It does not contradict 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 reasonably concise but contains redundancy (pagination mentioned twice) and a confusing sentence about RFI records. It could be more streamlined and accurate.

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 schema, the description includes endpoint, pagination, and required parameter. However, the inconsistent second sentence detracts from completeness, potentially causing the agent to misunderstand the tool's purpose.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description mentions required parameters and pagination but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. 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 first sentence clearly states the tool returns RFI cost code options for a project, but the second sentence says 'Use this to enumerate RFI records,' which conflicts with the resource type (cost code options vs. RFI records). This introduces ambiguity about the actual function.

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 misleading usage guidance by suggesting the tool enumerates RFI records, which is not its purpose. There is no mention of when to use this versus sibling filter options tools, nor any exclusions or alternatives. This could cause incorrect tool selection.

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