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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the useful detail that the result is scoped to four specific filter categories, but says nothing about result shape or whether the values are static/cacheable, so it adds only modest context beyond annotations.

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 that states the resource and the scope of the return value with zero filler. Nothing to trim and nothing buried.

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 name what is returned (valid slugs) and for which filters. It stops short of describing the response structure (e.g. a mapping of category to slug list) or any ordering guarantees, which for a zero-parameter lookup is a minor remaining gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs. It does usefully enumerate the four filter categories the returned slugs apply to, which is extra meaning not present in the empty schema.

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 names a specific verb ("Returns") and a concrete resource (valid slugs for the stage, type, status, and company category filters), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, reference the sibling tools whose filters these slugs feed (search_companies, search_productions), so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 title "List valid filter values" and the mention of "filters" imply this is a lookup to run before a filtered search, but the description never states when to call it, when not to, or which sibling consumes its output. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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