filter-list-entries-by-parent-id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions filtering behavior but doesn't disclose pagination details (implied by parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens with invalid IDs. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 front-loads the core purpose and includes helpful examples. Every word earns its place with zero redundant information.

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 read-only filtering tool with 4 parameters (2 required), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains the what but lacks behavioral details (pagination behavior, error handling) that would help an agent use it correctly, especially given no annotations.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds marginal value by clarifying that 'recordId' refers to a 'parent record' and providing examples ('company or person'), but doesn't explain parameter interactions or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific action ('Filter CRM list entries') and resource ('by parent record ID'), with explicit examples ('find all lists containing a specific company or person'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'filter-list-entries' (general filtering) and 'get-record-list-memberships' (different perspective).

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 context ('find all lists containing a specific company or person') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-record-list-memberships' or 'filter-list-entries'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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