get_rfi_evidence_form

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return content (the form plus the current submission if one was sent), which is genuine behavioral context, but says nothing about permission/auth requirements, whether it is strictly read-only, or failure behavior for a missing/invalid requirement.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately followed by the actionable next step. No filler; every clause contributes either scope, an example, or the downstream workflow.

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 present, the description partly compensates by stating that it returns the form along with any current submission and referencing fields/documents. This is sufficient for an agent to know what comes back and how to use it, though it stops short of describing the form's structure in any detail.

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 description coverage is 100% (rfiId, customerId, requirementId are each documented), so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds a clarifying note that requirementId is of type 'evidence', but no syntax or format detail 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and a precise resource: the form an `evidence` requirement on an RFI asks for, with a concrete example (source of funds behind a held payment). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_rfi_evidence by framing this as the retrieval step that feeds that tool's answers.

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?

Clear workflow context: use this to obtain the form, then build submit_rfi_evidence answers from its fields and documents. It routes the agent toward the related submit tool, but offers no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative retrieval paths (e.g. get_rfi / list_customer_rfis).

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