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

The description provides crucial behavioral details beyond the annotations and schema, specifically stating that it 'Returns operational fields and source links, not narrative text or personal information.' This informs the agent about data sanitization and output structure.

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 highly efficient. It is front-loaded with the main function, clearly lists the parameters, and quickly defines operational constraints like the exclusion of narrative text and the use of offset for iteration.

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?

Given the complexity of a filtered search tool and its very low schema coverage, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what data is fetched, how large sets are handled, and what data is explicitly excluded, providing a full operational context for the agent.

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?

With schema coverage at only 29%, the description must compensate heavily. It successfully maps the natural language filtering needs (like 'exact status') to the specific parameters, greatly aiding the agent's ability to map user queries to valid arguments.

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 precisely defines the scope by listing the resource types found (incidents, claims, tasks, inspections) and the criteria used for finding them (module, status, priority, location, page). This leaves no ambiguity for the AI agent.

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 provides guidance on pagination ('Use offset for more records'). However, it does not offer explicit advice on when to use this tool over siblings (like 'search') or what conditions mandate its use. It is adequate but not strongly prescriptive.

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