ClockNext: list units

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description does not contradict them. It adds some context by naming the returned fields and the intended use case, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as pagination, sorting, or auth requirements. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate.

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?

Two concise sentences, with the core function in the first sentence and a clear use case in the second. No filler or redundant information, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it states the resource, the returned fields, and the primary use case. The annotations provide safety context, and nothing critical is missing.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the only parameter ('active'), so the description does not need to explain it. The description mentions 'active' as an output field, which is slightly related but does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool lists the organisation's unit types and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, pricing type, active). The explicit use case of finding a unit id to reference in a plan's UNIT component further clarifies its purpose and differentiates it from sibling list tools.

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 gives a clear when-to-use directive: 'Use it to find a unit id to reference from a plan's UNIT component.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the stated use case provides sufficient guidance.

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