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, openWorldHint=true. The description adds the endpoint and required parameter but introduces misleading info about fetching incident details, detracting from transparency. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination behavior beyond schema) are disclosed.

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 consists of four sentences but includes a confusing sentence about fetching incident details that is irrelevant to the tool's actual purpose. This adds unnecessary clutter and reduces conciseness.

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 tool has no output schema and the description does not detail the structure of the returned JSON array. It also fails to explain the purpose of multiple versions (v1, v1_0, v1_0_2, v1_0_4). The misleading line about incident details further reduces 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for project_id, page, and per_page. The description only reiterates that project_id is required, adding no new meaning. With high schema coverage, baseline 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 states it 'Returns affected companies in use for filtering injuries' and 'Returns a JSON array of available filter values for Incidents', which indicates a filter options tool. However, it also says 'Use this to fetch the full details of a specific Incidents by its identifier', which contradicts the filter options purpose and creates confusion.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it or differentiate from sibling filter option tools like get_affected_body_part_filter_options.

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