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, which adequately signal safety. The description adds API endpoint and required parameters but includes a misleading statement about fetching incident details. No contradiction with annotations, but the description introduces confusion.

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 has 5 sentences, including API info, but the middle sentence about 'fetch the full details of a specific Incidents' is confusing and unnecessary. Could be trimmed to focus on the filter options purpose.

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 exists, so the description should clearly explain the return format beyond 'JSON array of available filter values'. It does not describe what an affected company is, how pagination works, or the relationship to environmental records and Incidents. The misleading sentence 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 merely restates 'Required parameters: project_id' without adding new meaning or usage context.

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 for filtering, but then contradicts itself by saying 'Use this to fetch the full details of a specific Incidents', which is a different purpose. This muddles the core function and makes it unclear whether the tool is for filter options or for fetching incident details.

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 the many sibling filter option tools (e.g., get_affected_body_part_filter_options). There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or context for selection.

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