List Causes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds nothing beyond that — no note on pagination behavior, the meaning of the 18 filter parameters, or what the endpoint returns, which matters for a listing tool with this many controls.

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?

At two words this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded scoping, no summary of what the tool returns, and nothing that earns its place because nothing is there.

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 tool with 18 mostly-undocumented parameters and no schema descriptions, the definition is completely inadequate. The presence of an output schema only relieves the need to explain return values, not the need to explain filtering and pagination inputs.

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% across 18 parameters, including non-obvious ones like include, filter_search, filter_name_eq vs filter_name_in, and the created_at range filters. The description must compensate and instead says nothing, leaving the agent to guess at syntax and semantics.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus get_cause, create_cause, or update_cause — all present in the sibling list. An agent receives zero routing guidance.

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