list_customer_rfis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation and the phrase 'with what each requirement needs next' discloses something about the returned content, but there is no mention of permissions, pagination, rate limits, or other operational traits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the verb and scope appear immediately. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter list tool.

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 and no annotations, the description should carry more of the return-value burden. It says each requirement includes 'what each requirement needs next', which is helpful, but omits pagination behavior and the broader shape of returned RFI records.

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%, with both customerId and status fully documented including enum values. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (List) and resource (compliance requests for information / RFIs), scoped to one customer, which distinguishes it from the general list_rfis and single get_rfi siblings. However, it does not explicitly name those alternatives, so it falls short of the 5-calibration example that routes the agent by naming the sibling.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_rfis or get_rfi. The scoping word 'one customer's' hints at context but does not tell the agent when this tool is preferred over the sibling listers.

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