list_communications

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses return ordering (newest first), that rows omit bill names, that reference is unique only within a session, and a hard pagination cap (limit 200) with offset paging. It does not mention auth requirements or the shape/fields of returned rows, but for a read-only listing tool this is solid disclosure.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by compact detail on chamber, id routing, reference, and pagination. The illustrative example quote is helpful but slightly verbose; every sentence otherwise earns its place.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies ordering, pagination limits, and partial return-row semantics (no bill names, unique reference). It stops short of describing full returned fields or auth requirements, but is largely sufficient for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: 'chamber' is defined as the sending chamber, limit is documented as capped at 200, offset is tied to paging, and reference uniqueness is clarified. session_code is only implied by 'in a session' rather than defined, leaving one gap.

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?

States a specific resource (inter-chamber communications in a session) with sorting behavior ('newest first') and explains the domain concept of a 'communication' precisely. It distinguishes itself from get_communication by noting the rows list no bills and that the sibling returns bill details. An agent can immediately tell what this returns versus its neighbors.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent to get_communication for bill-level detail by passing a communication_id, which is a clear alternative-selection rule. It implies session scoping via the required session_code and chamber filtering, but does not state when-not to use it or any prerequisites (e.g., API key). Clear context, one explicit alternative.

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