jd_list_operators

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds the upstream dependency for org_id, but return details it lists are already available via the output schema, so added behavioral value is modest.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by compact supporting notes. Every sentence is short and purposeful, though enumerating return fields overlaps with the output schema.

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 two-parameter read-only list tool with a full output schema, the description is complete enough: it states the action, the key dependency, and where org_id comes from. Return values need not be explained further given the output schema.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are fully documented in the schema (org_id source and record_filter semantics with default). The description reinforces the org_id origin but adds no syntax or meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (List) with a specific resource (machine operators) and scope (defined in an organization), which an agent can immediately understand. The resource is distinct from all siblings (organizations, fields, products, work plans), so no sibling disambiguation is needed, but the description does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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?

Provides one concrete prerequisite: 'Get org_id from jd_list_organizations.' This is useful context, but there is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or conditions for the record_filter behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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