Manager List

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral disclosure beyond annotations: 'Unsupported parameters are reported back rather than silently dropped.' This proactive error-behavior note helps agents anticipate failures, crediting transparency.

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 sentences, no padding. The purpose is front-loaded, examples are compact, and the error behavior is a final line. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly scannable for an agent.

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?

The description covers the core search/page behavior and date-filter semantics, and the output schema exists to explain return values. Yet with 11 parameters and zero schema coverage, several parameters remain opaque, and the required 'resource' parameter is not described beyond examples. The agent can likely call it, but edge parameters like extra_params and pagination are left vague.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the semantic burden. It explains 'term' searches, 'sort_by' taking a column name, and date feeds accepting from_date/to_date with format YYYY-MM-DD. However, it leaves many parameters unexplained (skip, page_size, fields, business, extra_params, sort_by_desc), so compensation is only partial.

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 states the tool's verb and resource clearly: 'Search or page any Manager collection, report feed or list' with concrete examples (customers, sales_invoices, payments). This is specific and distinguishes the tool's broad enumeration/search role from siblings like manager_get and manager_catalog, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 gives context ('Search or page any Manager collection') and hints at parameter usage, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives like manager_get or list_businesses, nor does it mention exclusions or fallback tools. An agent must infer usage from the broad wording.

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