List RFI Replies

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it returns a paginated JSON array with pagination metadata, but overall behavioral disclosure is adequately covered by annotations. No contradiction.

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 concise sentences, front-loading the purpose, then usage, then details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

For a list tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, pagination, and required params. It mentions pagination metadata but lacks details on the response structure, which is acceptable for a simple tool.

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 each parameter described. The description reinforces that page and per_page control pagination, but does not add significant new meaning 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 it 'Returns a list of replies for a specified RFI' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_rfis' which lists RFIs, not replies, and 'create_rfi_reply' which is a write operation.

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 explains when to use the tool: to enumerate RFI records for a paginated overview, find IDs, or filter by query parameters. It also mentions pagination controls. However, it does not explicitly specify when not to use it or compare to 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.