List Company Insurances

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

The description adds value beyond annotations: it discloses that the tool returns a 'paginated JSON array of Directory records' and that 'page' and 'per_page' control pagination with metadata in the response. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, which are consistent with the described behavior.

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 (4 sentences) and well-structured. It front-loads the purpose, then provides usage guidance, pagination details, and API reference. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a simple list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, pagination control, and API endpoint. It does not describe the exact structure of the returned JSON or pagination metadata fields, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations, this is sufficient for an AI agent.

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%, and the description adds only minor context: it reiterates that 'company_id' is required and explains that 'page' and 'per_page' control pagination, mentioning that the response includes pagination metadata. Since the schema already provides descriptions for all parameters, the description adds limited new value, meeting the baseline of 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 ('Return a list of all Insurances'), the resource ('associated with the specified Company'), and the use cases ('enumerate Directory records', 'find IDs', 'filter by query parameters'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'sync_company_insurances' (sync vs list) and 'create_company_insurance' (create vs list).

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 clear usage instructions: 'Use this to enumerate Directory records when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' It also notes the required parameter 'company_id'. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, the context is sufficient for an AI agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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