List Available RFIs Locations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description adds that it returns a paginated JSON array with pagination metadata and specifies the HTTP method (GET) and endpoint. No contradictions. Adds context beyond 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?

Description is lean with 4 sentences, no fluff. First sentence states purpose immediately. API reference is included but succinct. Every sentence adds value.

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 sufficiently explains return type (paginated JSON array) and metadata. It mentions pagination metadata. Could detail record structure, but for a filter options list, this is adequate. Endpoint info helps.

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. Description reiterates that page and per_page control pagination and notes required parameter project_id, but adds no new semantic 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 description clearly states it returns a list of RFI locations for a specified project. The verb 'Returns' and resource 'list of RFI locations' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_rfis by focusing on locations, as evidenced by the endpoint /rfis/filter_options/location_id.

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?

Provides explicit usage scenarios: 'enumerate RFI records when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' Also mentions required parameter and pagination control. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives like list_rfis.

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