List Correspondences

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, so the description's burden is low. It adds value by stating the response is a paginated JSON array with pagination metadata, and it provides the API endpoint. This is sufficient for a read-only list operation.

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 very concise: 4 sentences that front-load the purpose, then provide usage context, pagination details, and required parameters. Every sentence is informative and free of 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?

Considering the tool is a straightforward list endpoint with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it returns (paginated JSON array with metadata), how to use pagination, and the required parameters. It does not explain the structure of individual correspondence items, but that is acceptable given the lack of output schema. It is mostly 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?

The input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions. The description reiterates that project_id and bid_package_id are required and that page and per_page control pagination, but it does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. 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 the verb 'Return a list', the resource 'Correspondences', and the scope 'for a Bid Package'. It differentiates from sibling tools like list_correspondences_company by specifying the bid package context.

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 scenarios: 'when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' It also instructs on controlling pagination with page and per_page. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for single item retrieval.

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