list_additional_parties

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which is consistent with the 'List' action. The description adds context about main vs. additional parties, but it doesn't describe the response format or pagination behavior. However, given the read-only nature, the transparency is sufficient, and the description adds value beyond the annotations.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that immediately convey the purpose and key parameter. It avoids unnecessary detail and stays focused on the essential information.

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 provides sufficient context for a list operation: it identifies the resource, the parent entities, and gives examples of additional party types. It does not mention response structure, but that is not strictly required for a read-only list. The missing parameter descriptions are a minor gap, but overall the description covers the necessary 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?

Only the 'entity' parameter is described in the schema, and the description reiterates its allowed values. The parameters 'page', 'embed', 'perPage', and 'entityId' lack descriptions, though their names suggest common semantics (pagination, embedding, filtering). The description does not clarify 'entityId' or the meaning of 'embed' tokens, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 ('secondary party links'), and the target entities ('opportunity or project'). It also specifies the required parameter 'entity' and its allowed values. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from related tools like list_opportunities or list_projects.

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 description explains that the tool lists additional parties, contrasting them with the main party on the entity itself. It also instructs the user to set the 'entity' parameter to 'opportunities' or 'projects'. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, the context and examples make the appropriate usage clear. The lack of explicit 'when not to use' is a minor gap.

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