list_company_observers

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

No annotations present, and the description lacks any behavioral details beyond the basic operation. No mention of idempotency, permissions, rate limits, or potential side effects.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., indicating output format) but is efficient.

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 the simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is minimal but leaves questions about what 'observers' means and the output structure. It could provide more context without much verbosity.

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 mentions filtering by IDs, adding value beyond the schema which lacks parameter descriptions. However, it does not clarify what the IDs represent (company IDs or observer IDs), leaving ambiguity.

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) and the resources (companies and their observers), with optional filtering by IDs. It distinguishes from siblings like list_companies or list_company_members by focusing on observers.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_helpdesk_observers). It only mentions optional filtering, no context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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