Get Affected Company Filter Options

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds that it returns a JSON array of filter values and mentions required parameter and pagination. But the misleading sentence about fetching incident details reduces transparency.

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 relatively short but includes a contradictory sentence that adds confusion. It could be more concise and focused.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description should explain the return format more clearly. It vaguely says 'JSON array of available filter values' but lacks structure details. The misleading sentence about fetching an incident indicates incompleteness.

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%, so parameters are already documented well. Description only restates that project_id is required, adding no new semantic value beyond the schema.

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 states it returns affected companies used for filtering property damages, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling filter option tools by specifying 'affected companies'. However, a misleading sentence about fetching a specific incident by identifier detracts from clarity.

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 when to use this tool vs alternatives. It incorrectly claims the tool fetches full details of a specific incident, which is misleading. No guidance on when not to use or context about filter option tools.

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