clm_list_material_handovers

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the useful 'summaries' nuance, but does not go beyond annotations in disclosing behavior such as site defaulting or the literal-match status quirk, though those are covered in the schema. No contradiction exists.

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 with no filler: verb, resource, scope, and filters are all present. Every word carries meaning.

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 a complete input schema, annotations for read-only behavior, and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. A small deduction is warranted because it does not signal when to choose this over the singular material handover tool, but that is not essential given the available structured context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The main description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies even though the schema's status description is unusually detailed.

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 specific action ('List'), a clear resource ('material handover summaries'), and filters ('status and date range'). It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from clm_get_material_handover or other list-style siblings.

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 intended use is implied by the description: use it to list material handover summaries for a site within a date range and status filter. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over clm_get_material_handover or when not to use it, and no alternatives are mentioned.

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