List Checklist Schedule Inspection Type Filter Options

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it returns a JSON array of available filter values, which is useful but does not disclose behavioral traits beyond what annotations already provide. No contradiction.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage. It includes API details that are relevant but could be more concise. Overall, it is efficient and well-structured.

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?

Despite having multiple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage, required parameters, return type, and endpoint. It is complete enough for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema already documents all 6 parameters. The description only mentions required parameters and the endpoint, adding no additional meaning or explanation beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 clearly states it returns inspection types associated with inspection schedules with pagination and optional search. It uses specific verbs and resources, and by naming the tool 'list_checklist_schedule_inspection_type_filter_options', it distinguishes itself from sibling filter option 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 advises using this tool to enumerate inspections for a paginated overview, finding IDs, or filtering by query parameters. It lists required parameters but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. The context is clear, but exclusions are missing.

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