passgage_list_sub_companies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only list operation but doesn't explicitly state safety, authentication requirements, or side effects. It also doesn't mention default/return behavior beyond the schema hints for pagination.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized given the tool's simplicity.

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 is too sparse for the context: no output schema, no annotations, and a nested filters object. It doesn't describe return values, default pagination, or error conditions. More behavioral and output context would be needed for an agent to use it confidently.

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 coverage is 100%—all parameters (page, filters, per_page) have descriptions. The description's mention of 'optional filtering and pagination' adds no new semantic meaning over the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 action (List), the resource (sub_companies), and the optional features (filtering and pagination), which distinguishes it from the singular get_sub_companie tool. It is specific enough to be useful, though it doesn't elaborate on semantics like whether it lists all sub_companies in the current context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like get_sub_companie or other list_* tools. The description only mentions optional filtering and pagination, leaving the usage context entirely implicit. There are no exclusions or references to sibling tools.

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