list_values

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral detail (field enumeration, case-insensitive vs exact matching, date formats, substring vs exact semantics), but omits any mention of permissions/auth, result limits beyond the 'limit' default, or the shape of returned counts. Adequate but not rich.

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 purpose and field enumeration are front-loaded and efficient. The closing filter list, however, is both verbose and largely irrelevant to this tool's four parameters, so a meaningful portion of the text does not earn its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Given 0% schema coverage and 4 params, the description covers the critical field/search/product semantics well but leaves 'limit' undocumented and pads with filters that aren't real parameters, so it is partially complete rather than fully so.

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 0%, so the description must compensate: it enumerates all valid 'field' values (the required param) and explains 'search' and 'product'. But it also lists a long set of 'filters' (company, sub_product, tag, timely, date_from/date_to, etc.) that do not exist in the input schema, which muddies rather than clarifies the actual parameters, and 'limit' is never explained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the values of a field with complaint counts') and adds the goal ('to find exact product/issue/response names'), which distinguishes it from siblings like complaint_counts and find_company. An agent can tell what it returns without opening the schema.

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?

Implied usage is present ('to find exact product/issue/response names' signals this is a lookup/discovery step before filtering), and it cross-references find_company for exact company names. However, it never states when to prefer this over siblings like complaint_counts or compare_companies, so routing is left to inference.

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