list_adjustments

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe, non-mutating behavior is clear without the description. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior, default filtering, or consequences of using voided adjustments, so it provides no value beyond the 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?

The description is short but wasteful because it repeats the existing title. It is under-specified rather than deliberately concise, and the single sentence does not earn its place by adding information beyond the name.

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 rich input schema, annotations, and output schema compensate for much of what is missing, so the tool is minimally usable. Still, the description never explains what an adjustment is, when adjustment listings are appropriate, or how filters combine with each other, leaving clear gaps for an agent operating outside familiar domain 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each of the 6 parameters already has a meaningful description covering date ranges, pagination, tutor filtering, and voided inclusion. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'List Adjustments' simply restates the tool name and title in human-readable form. It names a verb and resource but adds no scope, no clarification of what an adjustment is, and no differentiation from the many other 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of required filters, and no exclusions. A user or agent must infer entirely from the name that this is the tool for listing adjustment records, which the schema does not fully convey in prose.

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