Fetch a paginated list of ideas with optional filtering

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds valuable context: 'Current Buffer GraphQL ideas', 'One request, no automatic pagination', and 'provider errors are failures even with HTTP 200.' This goes beyond annotations. However, it does not detail rate limits, partial success, or pagination cursor handling beyond what the schema provides.

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 four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then caveats about pagination and error handling. Every sentence earns its place, no redundancy.

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?

Given 9 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the key behavioral traits (no auto-pagination, provider errors on HTTP 200) and points to upstream fields for bounding data. It misses explaining the interaction between payload, payload_file, and individual fields (mutual exclusivity is in schema but not emphasized), and doesn't clarify return shape beyond pagination. Still largely complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 78%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds little parameter-specific guidance, only referencing 'upstream fields' generally. No additional meaning is provided for payload, payload_file, tagsFilter, or groupFilter beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource: 'Fetch a paginated list of ideas with optional filtering.' This distinguishes it from siblings like get_idea_groups and create_idea, and the pagination aspect differentiates it from a hypothetical non-paginated list. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative for filtering by other criteria, keeping it from a 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?

The description implies usage for listing ideas with optional filters, and adds 'Use upstream fields to bound data' and 'One request, no automatic pagination.' This gives some guidance on how to use it but lacks explicit when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g., when to use payload vs individual fields, or when to prefer get_idea_groups).

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