List Harm Sources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds pagination behavior and required company_id, but contains a potential inconsistency: it says 'Returns a paginated JSON array of Incidents' while the tool is about harm sources, which could mislead the agent.

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 (two sentences plus endpoint info) and front-loads the purpose. It is efficient, though the mention of 'Incidents' adds slight confusion.

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 description covers pagination but does not explain the filter parameters (filters__*, sort, all) or clarify the return type (harm sources vs incidents). Without output schema, more detail on response shape would be helpful.

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?

All 8 parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds minimal value by noting required company_id and pagination controls. 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' and the resource 'Harm Sources associated with a Company'. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., create, update, delete, show harm sources) by focusing on listing with pagination and filtering.

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 for use: '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 alternatives, but the context is clear.

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