List inbox dismissals

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and authorization class (board_or_agent), which are consistent with annotations. No contradictions. However, the description does not add significant behavioral context beyond what annotations convey, earning a solid 3.

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 very short (two lines), which is concise but at the expense of important details like parameter semantics and usage context. It is front-loaded but lacks completeness. Every sentence is present, but more information is needed.

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 simple list endpoint with one parameter and an output schema, the description provides minimal context: the HTTP path and auth class. It does not explain the concept of inbox dismissals or why one might list them. Given the complexity (simple tool), it is just barely adequate. Output schema existence reduces the need to describe return values, but more would help.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage. The sole parameter (path.companyId) is a string with no description in schema. The tool description does not explain what companyId represents or any constraints. This is a major gap, especially given the low schema coverage.

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?

Title and description clearly state 'List inbox dismissals'. The name and description indicate a GET operation per company. It is distinguishable from siblings like pc_post_companies_by_company_id_inbox_dismissals (create) and pc_delete_companies_by_company_id_inbox_dismissals_by_item_key (delete). However, it lacks elaboration on what an inbox dismissal is, keeping it from a score of 5.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states the operation without mentioning when to list vs create or delete. Sibling tools exist but no mention of context or exclusions.

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