list_search_filters

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It successfully documents return structure ('dict with keys platforms and product_types') and behavioral classification ('DISCOVERY tool'). Minor gap: no mention of whether values are cached/static or fetched live, or any rate limiting.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: sentence 1 states purpose, sentence 2 provides usage guideline labeled 'DISCOVERY', sentence 3 documents return structure. Perfectly front-loaded and sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite having an output schema (per context signals), the description comprehensively documents return values and structure. Establishes clear relationship to sibling search_swift_packages. Complete for a zero-parameter discovery utility.

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?

Input schema contains zero parameters (empty object). According to scoring rules, 0 params baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed by omitting any parameter discussion, which is appropriate for this tool type.

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 specific verbs ('Return', 'DISCOVERY tool') and clearly links to sibling tool search_swift_packages by name. It precisely scopes the resource as 'valid values for the constrained parameters', distinguishing it from the actual search execution performed by its siblings.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('call this first if you are unsure what values are accepted') and establishes clear workflow precedence relative to search_swift_packages. Provides specific parameter names (platforms, product_type) to trigger usage recognition.

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