list_rejection_reasons

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

With no annotations provided, the description effectively discloses the read-only nature ('Read-only.') and the core behavior of resolving names to IDs. It doesn't mention pagination or cache nuances, but these are already covered by the parameter descriptions. The description adequately communicates safety and what the tool does beyond simple listing.

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 exceptionally concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states exactly what the tool does, the second announces read-only status, and the third provides a practical example. No word is wasted, and each sentence serves a clear purpose.

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 lookup tool with an output schema and fully-specified parameters, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage pattern, and safety. It doesn't need to explain return values because the output schema exists, and the mention of where to use the result completes the context.

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, so the parameters page, per_page, and force_refresh are already well-documented. The description adds no extra meaning about these parameters beyond the schema, which meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'List all rejection reasons.' It also clarifies its purpose as a lookup mechanism that 'resolves rejection reason names to IDs,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like reject_application or bulk_reject.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool: 'When a user says "reject for not enough experience," use this to find the ID, then pass it to reject_application or bulk_reject.' This gives clear context and names the alternative tools that consume the output, providing both usage and integration guidance.

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