list_parties

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description details output format, the 'Showing X-Y of Z' line, compact one-line-per-party default, verbose JSON mode, count-only behavior for limit=0, and default values for active_only. This is rich behavioral context that helps an agent predict exactly what will happen.

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 well-structured, leading with the core behavior and output shape, then systematically documenting parameters. Every sentence contributes useful information; the text is longer than minimal but justified by five parameters and multiple behavioral nuances.

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 list tool with only optional parameters, this description is complete: it covers filtering, pagination, output modes, defaults, and count-only behavior. Because an output schema exists, the description does not need to enumerate return fields, and it still provides enough guidance for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It thoroughly explains every parameter: party_type options and omission behavior, active_only filtering, verbose output mode, limit page size/max/count-only semantics, and offset indexing. Nothing is left undocumented.

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 and resource: 'List customers, vendors, and/or employees.' This unambiguously identifies it as the collection-listing tool for parties, distinguishing it from the sibling single-record, create, update, and delete party tools. The three supported party types further refine the purpose.

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 clear guidance on how to use the tool: omit party_type for all types, filter with active_only, page with offset, and choose verbose for machine-readable output. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_party for single-record lookups, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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