Get Responsible Company Filter Options

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations cover, such as side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. It does not add value in this dimension.

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 relatively short but contains an unnecessary and contradictory sentence about fetching incident details. The Procore API and endpoint details add length without significant clarity. It is not as concise as it could be.

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, annotations, and full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the purpose and required parameter, but the erroneous sentence detracts from completeness. It does not explain pagination behavior or the concept of 'responsible companies' in context.

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 all three parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it only repeats that project_id is required. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 responsible companies used for filtering property damages, which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. However, it includes an irrelevant sentence about fetching incident details, which slightly muddies the clarity. The verb 'Returns' is appropriate, and the resource is specific enough to distinguish from sibling filter tools.

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 alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or provide context for selecting among the many similar filter option tools. The erroneous sentence about fetching incident details is misleading.

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