List Action Inquiries

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The verb 'List' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and 'you've submitted' specifies that results are scoped to the user's own inquiries. This is sufficient for a simple list tool, though pagination behavior is not mentioned.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with a parenthetical clarifying the term 'action inquiries'. Every word contributes meaning with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and scope. It could mention return fields or pagination details, but these are reasonably inferable from the resource name and pageSize parameter. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 single parameter pageSize has 100% schema description coverage, including a default value. The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'action inquiries', and defines these as disputes for missing/incorrect/rejected actions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_actions (lists actions) and get_action_inquiry (fetches a single inquiry).

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 implies usage—use this to list submitted action inquiries—but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as get_action_inquiry for detailed views or list_actions for action records. No when/when-not guidance is provided beyond the implied scope.

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