List Property Damages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds that it returns a paginated JSON array with pagination metadata, which provides some additional behavioral context beyond the 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) and well-structured: it starts with the primary function, then usage context, pagination details, required parameters, and API reference. However, there is a minor inconsistency in referring to the output as 'Incidents' rather than 'Property Damages', which could cause 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?

Given the rich annotations and comprehensive schema descriptions, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, pagination behavior, and endpoint. It lacks details about the return fields, but since it mentions 'Property Damage records' and 'Incidents', and there is no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent.

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 input parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds only minor context about pagination behavior ('Use page and per_page to control pagination; the response includes pagination metadata'), but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 Property Damage records for a given project, specifies the purpose (enumerating Incidents for paginated overview, ID finding, or filtering), and distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing the paginated overview and filtering capabilities. The verb 'Returns' and resource 'Property Damage records' are specific.

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 on when to use this tool ('when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters') and includes guidance on pagination controls (page, per_page). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools for single-record retrieval.

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