simpleinout_list_announcements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It reveals the HTTP method GET, implying a read-only operation, and mentions pagination parameters. However, it does not clarify authentication needs, rate limits, or that 'all announcements' requires paginating through pages. The description could have provided more safety and operational context.

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 concise and follows a clear structure: a one-sentence purpose, an API line, and an Args list. There is no extraneous content, though the API line is slightly redundant given the purpose statement. It is well-organized and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool's simplicity (3 optional parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential parameters and endpoint. However, it lacks contextual details like usage scenarios, prerequisites, or pagination iteration behavior. It is minimally viable but not fully complete for an agent unfamiliar with the company's API conventions.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning to the parameters. It provides brief explanations for each parameter: page as 'Page number', page_size as 'Results per page', and expand as 'optional comma-separated list of related resources to embed.' This adds value beyond the schema's types and defaults, especially for expand. However, page/page_size descriptions are somewhat tautological, and expand could specify which resources are embeddable.

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 explicitly states 'List all announcements for the company,' using a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling list tools for roles, statuses, users, etc. The phrase 'for the company' adds contextual scope, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. Usage is implied by the resource name and purpose, but there are no exclusions or comparisons to other sibling list tools. It is easy to infer when to use this tool, but the description lacks direct guidance.

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