co_list_adjustments

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds important behavioral context beyond that: the ranges were recovered by probing the live app rather than from the scripting dictionary, and the tool discloses any 'quirks'. This explains the nature of the data and sets expectations about reliability.

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 two sentences of dense but efficient information: what the tool returns, the exact provenance of some data, and a directive for when to use it. It is front-loaded with the purpose and then adds the contextual hint about co_adjust_variants. Every clause contributes value, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

This is a lightweight discovery tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema. The description still fully answers what is enumerated, that the data is source-proxied from live probing, and how the results should be used (to feed co_adjust_variants). It is complete for a tool of this complexity.

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?

The only parameter, 'filter', is already fully described in the input schema ('Substring match on the property name'). With 100% schema description coverage and no enums or nested objects, the schema itself does the work, so the description does not need to add parameter-level semantics. This meets the baseline for a well-documented schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every writable adjustment property') and names the exact content it returns ('with its type, description-type, valid range and any quirks'). It clearly differentiates this from other list tools, which operate on documents, variants, recipes, etc., by focusing specifically on *adjustment* properties and framing them as 'writable'.

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 tells the agent when to invoke this tool: 'Call this before co_adjust_variants to get exact parameter names and limits.' This is a direct usage instruction with a concrete alternative tool and the reasoning for calling it first. It also implies when not to use it (i.e., not when you want to actually adjust something), which is all an agent needs.

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