list_correspondents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a small amount of context by noting pagination and optional filtering, and by defining correspondents, but it does not disclose behaviors such as pagination defaults or ordering.

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?

One efficient sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action and resource. The definition of correspondents earns its place by grounding the term.

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?

For a tool with 8 optional parameters, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It does not cover filtering semantics, ordering possibilities, pagination behavior, or return structure.

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 only 38%, and five parameters (ordering, name__iexact, name__icontains, name__iendswith, name__istartswith) are undocumented. The description only says 'optional filtering and pagination' without adding meaning to any specific parameter, so it fails to compensate for the schema gaps.

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?

Description uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'List all correspondents', and clarifies what correspondents are. It is clear among siblings but does not explicitly differentiate itself from related tools like get_correspondent or list_document_types.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer that listing correspondents is the intended use.

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