List Filter Options For Ball In Court Company

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: returns a JSON array of filter values, requires project_id, and references the specific API endpoint. 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 (5 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Some redundancy exists (e.g., 'Returns a JSON array' repeated), but overall it is well-structured 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?

Given the low complexity and schema coverage, the description adequately covers purpose, return type, endpoint, and required parameter. It could mention pagination behavior or response structure more explicitly, but is generally 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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description restates that project_id is required and implies pagination via 'paginated overview', but adds no new semantic meaning 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 filter options for a specific field 'Ball in Court Company' for the project, with explicit reference to submittals. It differentiates from sibling tools (e.g., list_filter_options_for_location) by specifying the exact filter parameter.

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 context: 'Use this to enumerate Submittals when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the use case is well communicated.

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