List Programs

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by detailing the return format (paginated JSON array with metadata) and the API endpoint, which helps the agent understand the response structure. No contradictions 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 at four sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence adds essential information. No unnecessary words or repetitions.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, read-only), the description adequately covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return format. It mentions pagination metadata, which is critical for a list tool. A small gap is the lack of explicit mention that the list is company-scoped, but that is implied by the required company_id.

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 the baseline is 3. The description repeats that company_id is required and that page and per_page control pagination, but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides. It confirms usage context but doesn't deepen semantic understanding.

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 list of programs associated with a specified company, and it specifies the use case for enumerating Company Settings, finding IDs, or filtering by query parameters. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from similar list tools like list_programs_for_a_company_user, the purpose is specific and well-defined.

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 (for paginated overview, finding IDs, filtering) and notes required parameters. However, it does not mention when not to use it or offer alternatives, leaving some ambiguity among sibling tools.

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