List Checklist Schedule Inspection Template Filter Options

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to add much. It mentions pagination and optional search, which aligns with idempotent behavior. It does not add significant behavioral details beyond what annotations provide, but it is consistent.

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 concise, with two clear sentences plus endpoint info. It is front-loaded with the main action. Minor redundancy ('inspection templates' and 'Inspections' could be streamlined) but overall 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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description mentions the return type (JSON array of filter values) and the endpoint. However, it does not elaborate on pagination mechanics (page, per_page) or the enum filter values beyond what the schema provides. It is adequate but could be more specific about the structure of the returned data.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description adds only the mention of required parameters (company_id, project_id), which is already in the schema. It does not explain parameter semantics beyond what is 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 it returns inspection templates associated with inspection schedules, with pagination and optional search. It also specifies the use case: 'enumerate Inspections when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' While it differentiates from sibling filter tools by mentioning 'inspection templates', it does not explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'checklist_schedule_inspection_type_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 some usage context: 'Use this to enumerate Inspections when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for similar tasks (e.g., other filter option endpoints). The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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