List Hazards

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds valuable context: pagination controls, response format (JSON array, pages remaining), default company_id behavior, and typical error status codes (401, 403, 404). This thoroughly discloses behavior.

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 moderately long but every sentence provides useful information: purpose, defaults, use case, response format, read-only assurance, error handling, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids fluff, though slightly dense.

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 8-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, default behavior, pagination, response details, error scenarios, required parameters, and API endpoint. No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful details beyond the schema: the all parameter includes inactive hazards, page/per_page control pagination, and company_id can be omitted to use a configured value. This clarifies the parameters' practical usage.

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 tool returns a paginated list of hazards for a company, defines what hazards are, and explains its use for discovery and ID lookup. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like show_hazard and create_hazard.

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 clear context: use for discovering hazards or looking up an ID before calling another tool. It also explains default behavior (active only) and company_id fallback. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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