List RFIs

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere: it declares newest-first ordering and warns that schedule/compliance notices are excluded from the same module, so a page can hold fewer than limit — a real behavioral caveat an agent needs to avoid misreading a short page as the end of data.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource, then the return payload, then the caveat about excluded notices. The long field enumeration earns its place given there is no output schema, though the opening fragment ('Requests for information with question, project...') is slightly clipped.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates well by listing the returned fields, their possible status values, ordering, excluded record types, and filtering options. The only real gap is search scope (which fields the query matches).

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 75% and cursor/search/project_id already carry short descriptions there. The description reinforces project and search filtering and adds the important nuance that limit is an upper bound, not a guaranteed page size, but adds nothing on cursor semantics or which fields the search scans.

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?

States a specific verb (reads/lists) and resource (RFIs in the RFI & Notices module) and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It doesn't explicitly name get_rfi for single-record retrieval, so the list-vs-get distinction is only implied by the plural phrasing.

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?

It says 'Filter by project or search,' implying the two main retrieval modes, but never states when to prefer this over get_rfi or when the sibling search tools apply. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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