advbox_list_lawsuits

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the useful trait 'Returns paginated results,' which is not fully explicit in the schema. However, it omits other behavioral aspects like read-only nature, auth requirements, or filter combination behavior, so it is only partially transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every phrase adds value—the filter categories and pagination notice are substantive. No wasted words.

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 tool has 20 parameters and no output schema, yet the description only covers the core action and pagination. It does not explain return fields, how filters interact, ordering, or other contextual details. Adequate but leaves meaningful gaps for such a complex tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description briefly references filter groups like customer, process number, dates, stage, and responsible, but does not add syntax, combination rules, or default behavior beyond what the schema already provides.

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: 'List lawsuits from Advbox' with specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like advbox_get_lawsuit by indicating a listing (plural) rather than a single retrieval, and the mention of filter options clarifies its scope.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies listing scenarios, it does not mention exclusions or reference siblings (e.g., advising to use advbox_get_lawsuit for a single lawsuit). Lacks clear contextual usage direction.

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