Get Affected Parties Filter Options

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe read-only behavior. The description adds that it returns a JSON array, but includes a contradictory statement about fetching incident details. No contradiction with annotations, but the clarity is slightly undermined.

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 somewhat verbose with an irrelevant second sentence. It could be more concise and focused on the tool's primary purpose, but it is not excessively long.

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 explains the return type (JSON array) but lacks details on pagination or the effect of page/per_page parameters. It also contains a confusing statement that detracts from completeness. Given the tool's simplicity, it is adequate but not thorough.

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 fully documented in the schema. The description merely mentions required parameters without adding meaningful context beyond what the schema provides.

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 filter options for affected parties related to incidents, which is clear. However, it also includes a misleading sentence about fetching full incident details, which conflicts with the tool's actual 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 versus alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it or provide context for its selection among many filter options tools.

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