entities_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states it lists entity types, omitting details like error handling, data freshness, or whether it requires a valid companyId. The description does not add significant behavioral context beyond the obvious read operation.

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?

Two succinct sentences: first states purpose with examples, second provides actionable guidance. No fluff, every word 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?

Given one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what the tool returns (entity types with 'name' field) and how to use that output. Lacks details on potential empty results or error conditions, but is sufficient for a simple list 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 coverage is 100% with a description for companyId. The description does not add semantics beyond what the schema provides, simply repeating usage context. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Lists' and the resource 'importable entity types for a company', with concrete examples (Invoice, Bill, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like fields_get and import tools by specifying the output name is used as input for those tools.

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 instructs to use the returned 'name' as entityName for fields_get and import tools, implying this tool is a prerequisite. Does not state when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is clear for the intended workflow.

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