List Filter Options For Location

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds that it returns a JSON array of available filter values and mentions the required project_id, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination behavior beyond the parameter definitions, rate limits, or authorization needs. The value added beyond annotations is moderate.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose. It includes usage context, return type, required parameter, and API endpoint info. While the API endpoint detail may be unnecessary for an AI agent, it does not significantly bloat the text. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (read-only list with 3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage context, and parameter requirement. It does not detail the structure of the returned filter options (e.g., value/label format), but the context signals indicate no output schema, so the agent must rely on runtime discovery. It is sufficiently complete for a straightforward filter options tool.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all three parameters (project_id, page, per_page). The description only reiterates that project_id is required and implies pagination via 'paginated overview', adding no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. With high coverage, baseline is 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 it returns all Filter Options for Location for the project, and explains it is used to enumerate Submittals for paginated overview, finding IDs, or filtering. While it distinguishes from siblings implicitly by specifying 'Location', it does not explicitly contrast with other list_filter_options tools, so it lacks full differentiation.

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 context on when to use the tool (enumerating Submittals for paginated overview, IDs, filtering), but does not mention when not to use it or offer alternatives like list_submittals or other filter option tools. The guidance is clear but not comprehensive in terms of exclusions or comparisons.

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