List Filter Options For Submittal Sub Job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable context by stating the return type (JSON array of filter values), mentioning pagination support (page/per_page), and specifying the required parameter (project_id). No contradiction 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 (three sentences), front-loaded with the purpose and use cases, and includes essential details like endpoint and required parameter. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must compensate. It returns a 'JSON array of available filter values,' but doesn't specify the structure of each filter option. Given the simplicity of the tool (listing filter options for a specific sub_job_id), this is mostly adequate, though more detail could help.

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 parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds marginal value by linking pagination parameters to the 'paginated overview' use case and explicitly restating the required project_id. This helps the agent understand when to use these parameters.

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 (Returns all Filter Options), resource (for Submittal Sub Job defined for the project), and provides specific use cases like enumerating Submittals, finding IDs, and filtering by query parameters. It effectively distinguishes the tool from other similar tools by focusing on sub_job_id filter options.

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 gives explicit usage scenarios: 'Use this to enumerate Submittals when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives. Given the large number of sibling tools, this omission slightly reduces clarity.

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