wafeq_amortizations_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the HTTP endpoint 'GET /amortizations/' and a READ-ONLY label, which is mildly useful, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, response shape, or filter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 short and front-loaded with the READ-ONLY badge and endpoint path. However, it contains redundancy: 'List amortizations' is repeated in the following sentence 'Endpoint for retrieving a list of amortizations,' which prevents a perfect score.

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?

With 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and only 33% schema coverage, a minimal two-line description is not enough. The agent lacks guidance on date filters, duration/recognition_type enums, pagination behavior, and what fields each returned amortization record contains.

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 only 33%: page, page_size, and status__in have descriptions, while duration, recognition_type, start_date_after, start_date_before, end_date_after, and end_date_before are undocumented. The tool description does not compensate by explaining any of these parameters, so an agent is left guessing about key filtering fields.

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 a clear verb and resource: 'List amortizations' and 'Endpoint for retrieving a list of amortizations.' It is unambiguous about the operation, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like wafeq_amortizations_retrieve or other amortization endpoints.

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 phrase 'retrieving a list of amortizations' implies this tool is for list-style, multi-record retrieval, which provides some usage context. However, it offers no explicit guidance about when to choose this over alternatives such as wafeq_amortizations_retrieve, or when to use filters like status__in or date ranges.

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