List Assignee Company Filter Options

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds that it returns a JSON array and requires project_id, and mentions pagination parameters (page, per_page), which are not covered by 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 three sentences with no unnecessary text. First sentence states purpose, second gives usage guidance, third adds technical details (API endpoint and required parameter). Clear and efficient.

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 covers the essential: what the tool returns (JSON array of filter values), required parameter, pagination support, and API reference. Since there is no output schema, it briefly explains return format. Could be more specific about the structure of filter values, but adequate.

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% (all 5 parameters described in schema). The description only mentions project_id as required, which is already in the schema. No additional parameter meaning is added beyond 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 tool returns a list of available assignee vendor filters for Coordination Issues. It specifies the verb (returns), resource (assignee company filter options), and distinguishes from sibling filter options tools by specifying 'assignee company' and 'vendor'.

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 specific usage scenarios: when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters. While it does not explicitly exclude alternatives, it gives clear context for when to use this tool.

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