List Available RFI Received From Filter Options

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds that it returns a JSON array of filter values and mentions pagination via page/per_page parameters, but does not disclose rate limits, performance characteristics, or the structure of the returned array. The annotations bear most of the transparency burden, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences plus endpoint info, but it contains redundancy ('Returns a list' and 'Returns a JSON array') and a slightly misleading use case statement mentioning enumeration of RFI records. It is adequately sized but not optimally concise or precise.

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 no output schema, the description should explain the return value structure, but it only says 'JSON array of available filter values.' It does not specify the field names or types of the filter option objects. The pagination parameters are documented, but it is unclear if the response itself is paginated (since filter options lists are often small). The endpoint path provides additional context for the specific filter field.

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 descriptions for all three parameters (project_id, page, per_page). The description only restates that project_id is required and mentions pagination vaguely, adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 identifies the tool as returning a list of 'received from' filter options for RFIs on a specified project. It specifies the resource (RFIs), action (list filter options), and scope (by project). The endpoint path clarifies the exact field (received_from_login_information_id), distinguishing it from sibling filter options tools for other fields like assigned_id or ball_in_court.

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 it 'to enumerate RFI records when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters,' which is somewhat vague and not entirely accurate (it enumerates filter options, not RFI records). No explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives among the many sibling filter tools is provided.

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