List Signatures

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

Beyond annotations indicating read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, the description adds that it returns a paginated JSON array with pagination metadata, and mentions required parameters. This provides useful behavioral context exceeding the annotated hints.

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 very concise: two main sentences plus an API reference line. It front-loads purpose and usage, with no redundant information. Every part adds 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 low complexity (3 parameters, 1 required, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, when to use, pagination behavior, required parameter, and API endpoint. No gaps remain.

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 description coverage is 100% for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'Use page and per_page to control pagination' but does not add significant new meaning 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 all signatures detailed information and specifies use cases: enumerating Field Productivity records, paginated overview, finding IDs, filtering. This distinguishes it from sibling tools by mentioning the specific resource (signatures) and the context (Field Productivity).

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 explicitly states when to use: 'when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' It provides clear use cases but does not mention when not to use or name alternative tools among the many siblings.

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