Get All Resource Requests For A Single Project

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

Annotations already indicate a safe read operation (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false). The description adds useful behavioral context: it's a 'pageable endpoint' and requires specific path parameters (company_id, project_id). No contradictions with 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 is five sentences and covers purpose, usage, parameters, and endpoint efficiently. The inclusion of the full endpoint path is slightly redundant but not harmful. It is well-structured with the most important information first.

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 is adequate for a read-only, pageable list endpoint. It mentions that it returns 'a JSON object describing the requested Resource Planning records,' but does not elaborate on the structure or fields. Given no output schema, basic completeness expectations are reasonably met, though more detail on the response format would be beneficial.

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 the description does not need to add much. It redundantly states required parameters but does not provide new meaning beyond the schema. The pageable nature is mentioned, but paging parameters are already well-described in the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('Retrieves all Resource Requests') and the specific resource ('for a specified Project within a company'). It directly distinguishes itself from sibling tools that operate on groups or entire companies, as seen in the sibling list.

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 clear context on when to use the tool ('to fetch the full details of a specific Resource Planning records') and mentions required parameters. However, it does not explicitly exclude cases when the broader group or company-level tools should be used instead, leaving some ambiguity.

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