Get Filing Type Filter Options

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true, but the description does not add meaningful behavioral context. It does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior (though page/per_page params exist). The contradictory statement about fetching incident details adds confusion rather than transparency.

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 brief but contains a contradictory and irrelevant sentence that wastes space and reduces conciseness. It front-loads the purpose but then misleads with the second sentence. A clearer and more accurate description would be more concise.

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 of filter values) and ties it to incidents/injuries, providing basic context. However, without an output schema, it does not specify the structure of the array elements. The contradictory sentence detracts from completeness, but given the low complexity of a filter options tool, the core purpose is communicated.

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 descriptions for each parameter. The description only reiterates that project_id is required, which is already clear from the schema. It does not explain how page and per_page affect results or provide additional context about parameter usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 begins by stating it returns filing types for filtering injuries, which is clear. However, it then contradicts this by claiming it can fetch full details of a specific incident, which is misleading and undermines clarity. The tool is one of many filter option endpoints, but the description does not distinguish it from siblings like get_affected_body_part_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 other filter option tools or alternatives. The incorrect instruction to 'fetch the full details of a specific Incidents' is confusing and could lead to misuse. There is no mention of when to use it or when not to.

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