list_additional_parties

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description confirms a read operation. It adds context on what constitutes an additional party but does not disclose pagination behavior or response format. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the core action and resource, the second provides context and parameter guidance. No wasted words, and the critical information is front-loaded.

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 covers the essential context: what the tool lists, which entities it applies to, and how to set the entity parameter. Without an output schema, it could mention the expected return format, but for a simple list tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond the input schema by defining the concept of additional parties and explaining that the entity parameter should be 'opportunities' or 'projects'. However, it does not describe page, perPage, or embed parameters. With 60% schema coverage, this partial compensation is good.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'secondary party links' on an opportunity or project. It distinguishes from the main party and provides examples (partners, consultants, referrers), making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool (list additional parties on opportunities or projects) and contrasts with the main party. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like add_additional_party. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of filtering alternatives.

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