Get Affected Parties Filter Options

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the tool returns a JSON array of filter values and mentions the scope (affected parties for near misses). This provides some behavioral context but does not disclose additional traits such as rate limits or pagination behavior beyond the schema.

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 several sentences, some of which are confusing or misleading (e.g., the incident reference). While it front-loads the main purpose, the redundant and contradictory statements detract from conciseness. It could be shorter and clearer.

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 the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but not fully complete. It does not explain the structure of the returned array, how pagination works with page/per_page, or what constitutes an 'affected party.' The confusing incident mention further detracts from 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 already has 100% description coverage for all parameters (project_id, page, per_page) with clear documentation. The description merely repeats 'Required parameters: project_id' and does not add new semantic information. Therefore, it meets the baseline of 3.

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 'Returns affected parties in use for filtering near misses,' which clearly defines the tool's purpose. However, it also includes misleading statements: 'fetch the full details of a specific Incidents by its identifier' and 'Returns a JSON array of available filter values for Incidents,' which introduce confusion and may cause an agent to misuse the tool by expecting incident details instead of filter options.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many similar filter options tools (e.g., get_affected_company_filter_options_project). It only states 'Required parameters: project_id,' which is basic and does not help an agent select among siblings. There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use directives.

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