list_reports

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

Without annotations, the description bears full burden. It correctly implies a read-only list operation but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness. It mentions pagination via the limit parameter but lacks details on ordering, empty results, or response format, which are acceptable for a simple list tool.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences, front-loading the key purpose and pagination instruction. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is adequate for a simple list tool. It covers the main action and pagination but omits details like default ordering and result structure. Could be more complete with response hints.

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 both parameters described. The description adds a hint to use limit for pagination, which is valuable, but does not mention the status parameter. This provides marginal extra value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'ZomPP reports', with the Polish term in parentheses for clarity. It also mentions pagination using the limit parameter, which differentiates it from the sibling tool get_report that retrieves a single report.

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 implies usage when listing reports is needed and mentions pagination, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_report or search_legal_precedents. There is no guidance on when not to use this tool, such as for single report retrieval.

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