List Correspondence Type Defaults

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

Annotations already show readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by stating the tool returns a paginated JSON array with metadata, and mentions pagination parameters. No contradictions with 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 concise (about 5 sentences) and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides usage, return type, pagination details, and endpoint info. All sentences are relevant 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?

With no output schema, the description explains the return value as a paginated JSON array of Custom-Configurable Tools with pagination metadata. However, it does not describe the structure of each item, and the equivalence between 'Correspondence Type Defaults' and 'Custom-Configurable Tools' is unclear, leaving some gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context by noting that project_id is required and that page/per_page control pagination, but it does not add significant new information 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 it returns a list of Correspondence Type Defaults for a project, using specific verb and resource. It explains use for enumerating Custom-Configurable Tools with pagination and filters. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_default_correspondence_types', so not a perfect score.

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 usage guidance: 'Use this to enumerate Custom - Configurable Tools when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' However, it does not mention when NOT to use it or compare to alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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