List Subsidiaries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful domain context (subsidiaries determine 'Bill From' on invoices), but says nothing about pagination behavior, permissions, or result ordering. As a read-only list tool these gaps are modest, but behavioral disclosure remains thin.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then domain meaning, then the routing hint. No filler or repetition.

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 zero-required-parameter read-only list tool with fully documented params and no output schema, the description supplies the key missing piece: why an agent should call it (to obtain subsidiary_id for invoice creation). Only pagination/return-shape detail is absent, which is minor.

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 page, status, and page_size are already documented in the schema (including the status enum values 1=active, 2=archived). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb (List) and resource (subsidiaries in Productive.io), then explains what subsidiaries are ('company entities' that determine 'Bill From'). No sibling tool lists subsidiaries, so it is clearly distinguishable.

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?

Explicitly names the scenario for use: 'Use this when creating invoices to find the correct subsidiary_id.' This routes the agent well. It stops short of stating when-not to use it or naming alternatives, but no obvious competing sibling exists for this resource.

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