Get information request form

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is fully covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: the response includes the current submission 'if one was sent,' which tells the agent the call is state-dependent and may return a partial/absent submission. It does not cover error behavior for mismatched requirement types, so not a 5.

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, zero waste. The core action and its scoping example come first, and the follow-on guidance about submit_rfi_evidence is placed after the essential information.

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 carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so at a useful level: a form with fields and documents plus the current submission if one exists. It stops short of describing the shape of those fields or documents, which would be helpful for an agent constructing a submit_rfi_evidence payload.

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% and all three IDs (customerId, rfiId, requirementId) are documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description reinforces that requirementId must be an 'evidence' type requirement but adds no syntax, format, or sourcing guidance beyond what the schema already states.

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 and resource ('Get the form an `evidence` requirement on an RFI asks for') and adds a concrete example (source of funds behind a held payment). It implicitly distinguishes itself from get_rfi (the RFI itself) and submit_rfi_evidence (the answer submission) without the agent needing to open the schema.

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 clearly frames the call as a pre-step: fetch the form, then 'Build the submit_rfi_evidence answers from its fields and documents,' naming the sibling that consumes the output. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use clause (e.g., what to do if the requirement is not of type 'evidence'), so it falls short of a 5.

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