List Company Action Plan Template Requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral details about pagination (page, per_page, pagination metadata), which is useful. However, it does not discuss rate limits, auth requirements, or error conditions.

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 long, starting with the core purpose, then usage guidance, return value, pagination details, and endpoint reference. Every sentence adds value, though the API endpoint line might be less critical for an AI agent. No wasted words.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description must convey return format. It states 'Returns a paginated JSON array of Action Plans' and mentions pagination metadata. It also notes required parameters and highlights filter capability. Missing error scenarios, but for a straightforward list tool, this is sufficiently complete.

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 the input schema already documents each parameter. The description reinforces that company_id is required and that page/per_page control pagination, but it does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. The baseline for high coverage is 3.

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 action ('Gets the list') and the specific resource ('Company Action Plan Template Test Record Requests'). It mentions enumeration, pagination, and filtering. However, it slightly conflates 'Action Plans' with 'Test Record Requests' in the second sentence, which could cause minor confusion. The resource name is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like 'list_action_plan_template_approvers'.

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 context on when to use this tool ('Use this to enumerate Action Plans when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters') and notes that company_id is required. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives among the many sibling list tools for action plan resources.

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