list_rfis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses sort order and default statuses, which is useful, but omits permissions, pagination behavior, and return-value characteristics for a six-parameter list tool.

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 front-loaded, appropriately sized, and every sentence contributes: purpose, default behavior, and operational trigger. There is no redundant or wasted text.

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 full schema coverage, the description is sufficient to select and invoke it correctly. It is slightly thin on return format and pagination, but those gaps are minor given the schema and the tool's straightforward read-only nature.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description only reinforces the default status behavior and adds no extra syntax or filter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource: it lists the organisation's compliance RFIs and defines RFI. It also specifies ordering (newest first) and default statuses, though it does not explicitly name the sibling list_customer_rfis as the customer-scoped alternative.

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 gives a clear use case: check this when a transfer or deposit is held, or subscribe to rfi.* webhooks instead. It does not explicitly say when not to use it versus list_customer_rfis or get_rfi, but the guidance is actionable.

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