List records

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the underlying endpoint (GET /records) and hints at cross-team scope, but says nothing about pagination behavior, rate limits, auth requirements, or how the default redaction of contact data interacts with list output.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before moving to filters/sorting and then the endpoint. Every sentence carries information, though the endpoint mention is marginally useful to an agent that never sees HTTP directly.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of summarizing record contents (status, client name/ID, steps, dates) and enumerating filter/sort axes, which is enough for correct invocation. The main omission is routing guidance against the record-related siblings, plus pagination expectations.

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%, so all ten parameters are already documented in the schema, including the non-obvious pagination/redaction semantics on max_results and include_contact_details. The description merely restates which filters exist and adds no format or behavioral detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (list) and resource (records, clarified as onboarding requests), and describes the shape of each returned record (status, client name/ID, steps, dates). 'Across the team' gives partial differentiation from the sibling list_client_records, which is client-scoped, but the distinction is never made explicit.

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 filter and sort dimensions are enumerated, which implies when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance — nothing tells the agent to prefer list_client_records for a single client or get_record for a single record, despite both being siblings.

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