podyx_v1_list_setups

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real value beyond them: studio is derived from the API key, tenant selectors in the request are silently ignored, defaults are page 1 / 20 entries, and page size is capped at 100. The trailing sentence about quotes not reserving a slot is boilerplate that does not fit a list operation, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded and dense, with auth scoping and pagination facts stated first. However, the closing sentence 'a quote does not reserve a slot or lock a price' is irrelevant to a list endpoint and adds noise that could confuse an agent about the tool's effect.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not indicate what a setup record contains or whether results are paginated via a cursor/next link beyond 'follow all pagination'. With two of four query parameters undocumented, an agent can call it but cannot fully reason about filtering behavior.

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 essentially 0% (only per_page has a 'Clamped to 1–100' note), so the description does some of the lifting by restating pagination defaults and the 100 cap. It says nothing about room_id filtering or include_inactive, leaving two nested query parameters unexplained.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('listSetups') and pins the endpoint (GET /api/v1/setups), so an agent can tell it apart from the singular podyx_get_setup sibling. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative tool, but the scope of the operation is 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?

Provides operational context (key-based studio resolution, tenant selectors ignored, pagination must be followed) that shapes how to call it, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to podyx_get_setup or podyx_list_setup. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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