filter-list-entries-by-parent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states the tool filters entries, it doesn't describe whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are returned (e.g., pagination behavior beyond schema hints), or potential side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic function.

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 is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes helpful examples in parentheses. There is no wasted language, and every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, filtering logic) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output format. For a filtering tool with no structured output information, more guidance on result handling would be beneficial.

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 already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it mentions filtering 'based on parent record properties' and gives examples ('companies by industry, people by role'), but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints not already in the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: 'Filter CRM list entries based on parent record properties' with specific examples like 'find companies by industry, people by role'. It uses a specific verb ('filter') and resource ('CRM list entries'), but doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'filter-list-entries' or 'filter-list-entries-by-parent-id'.

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. It mentions examples ('find companies by industry, people by role') which imply context, but doesn't specify when to choose this over similar tools like 'filter-list-entries' or 'filter-list-entries-by-parent-id', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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