filter-list-entries

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool filters entries but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it affects data, what permissions are required, or how results are returned (e.g., pagination details beyond schema). The description is minimal and lacks crucial behavioral context for a filtering tool.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with a relevant example. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and wastes no words. This is appropriately concise for a straightforward filtering tool.

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 filtering tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, return format, error conditions, or how it differs from similar tools like 'advanced-filter-list-entries'. The agent lacks context to use this tool effectively beyond basic parameter filling.

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 the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying filtering by attribute. It doesn't explain parameter interactions, value types, or provide examples beyond the generic 'e.g., stage, status'. With high schema coverage, the baseline 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 action ('filter entries') and resource ('in a CRM list'), with a specific attribute example ('e.g., stage, status'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-list-entries' (no filtering) and 'advanced-filter-list-entries' (more complex filtering), but doesn't explicitly name alternatives. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'advanced-filter-list-entries' or 'search'. It mentions filtering by a specific attribute but doesn't specify prerequisites, limitations, or when other tools might be more appropriate. This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.

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