List Correspondences

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 repeat safety. It adds value by stating the return type (paginated JSON array) and pagination metadata. No contradictions.

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 four sentences that front-load the purpose, then provide usage guidance and technical details. Each sentence serves a purpose. It could be slightly tighter, but overall 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?

For a list tool with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, required parameters, pagination, and return type. It also includes endpoint info. It is adequately complete for an AI agent to invoke 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 parameters. The description adds contextual guidance by stating 'Use page and per_page to control pagination' and clarifying required parameters (already in schema but reinforced). This adds modest value 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 the tool returns a list of Correspondences for a Bid Package and specifies the domain (Bid Management). It distinguishes from siblings like list_correspondences_project by focusing on company-level. The verb 'Return a list' and resource 'Correspondences for a Bid Package' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to enumerate Bid Management records when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' It explains pagination with page/per_page but does not explicitly exclude cases like project-level correspondences. However, the context implies the scope.

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