list_units

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is safe and read-only. The description adds no further behavioral traits (e.g., pagination details, response format). Given annotation coverage, the description does not hurt but adds little.

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 a single, clear sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately short for a straightforward list operation, though it could be slightly more structured with parameter hints.

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?

The description fails to explain that this is a paginated list supporting filtering, search, and field selection. Without an output schema, the agent has no idea what the response shape is. For 5-parameter tool, the description is too minimal to be fully actionable.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 5 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., does not explain how parameters like 'filter' or 'q' affect results).

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 'Returns list of units' clearly identifies the action (list) and resource (units), matching the tool name. However, it does not distinguish this from many sibling list tools (e.g., list_contacts), missing a chance to specify scope or uniqueness.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context on prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The agent receives no help in deciding between list_units and other list operations.

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