Get Affected Company Filter Options

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds 'Returns a JSON array of available filter values for Incidents' and mentions the endpoint, which provides some behavioral context. However, it does not significantly expand beyond 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?

The description contains five sentences, but two are contradictory or extraneous. The extraneous sentence about fetching incident details wastes space and misleads. More concise and focused wording is needed.

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?

The description mentions the endpoint and API area, and notes the return type (JSON array). However, it does not explain pagination behavior or clarify that it returns options for filtering, not full incidents. The contradictory statement undermines completeness.

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?

The input schema describes all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description only reiterates that project_id is required, adding no new semantics. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 contains contradictory statements: it first says 'Returns affected companies in use for filtering near misses', but then says 'Use this to fetch the full details of a specific Incidents by its identifier.' The second statement is inaccurate for a filter-options endpoint, confusing the tool's purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative versions (e.g., get_affected_company_filter_options_project_v1_0_2) or other filter-option tools. The description lacks context for selection.

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