Список дел

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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a non-obvious behavioral trait beyond those annotations: the returned set is token-limited, and if the token was issued for specific businesses, the panel returns exactly those and does not return the rest.

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 one compact sentence that front-loads the key fact (token-accessible cases) and then adds a valuable scoping clarification. Every part earns its place and there is no filler.

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 read-only list operation with one optional parameter, no output schema, and safety annotations already present, the description is sufficient. It explains the important access model and does not leave critical gaps for selecting or invoking the tool.

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 100%, so the single optional parameter is already documented in the input schema. The main description adds no extra information about include_archived, so the baseline of 3 applies. The schema text is slightly ambiguous about the default behavior, but that is not compensated by or contradicted in the main description.

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 identifies the resource ('businesses/cases available to the token owner') and adds the important scope detail that token-scoped cases are returned exactly while others are omitted. It does not use an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'returns', but the name and title make the operation clear.

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 that this tool should be used to see the cases the current token can access, and it explains the token-scoping behavior. However, it never mentions alternatives such as businesses_get for retrieving a single business, nor does it state explicit conditions for preferring this tool over siblings.

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