List Recycled Company Action Plan Template Test Record Requests

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds value by stating pagination behavior, the return format (paginated JSON array), and the required company_id. It also provides the API endpoint, which is extra context. 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 relatively concise, with four sentences that front-load the purpose. It avoids unnecessary repetition but includes the API endpoint, which is useful for some users. Every sentence contributes value.

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 has 10 parameters and no output schema, the description explains pagination and filtering but lacks details about the return fields or structure. It says 'returns a paginated JSON array of Action Plans' but does not specify what properties each object contains, which is a gap.

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%, and the parameter descriptions in the schema are already detailed. The description only reiterates that company_id is required and mentions pagination controls (page, per_page), adding minimal new meaning. 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 identifies the resource and action: listing recycled company action plan template test record requests. It mentions enumeration and filtering, but the phrase 'enumerate Action Plans' could be slightly imprecise as the specific resource is 'test record requests'. However, it distinguishes from many sibling list tools by specifying the exact resource.

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 advises using the tool for paginated overview, finding IDs, or filtering. This provides some usage context. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternative tools (e.g., other list endpoints for active items), which limits guidance.

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