merit_list_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the HTTP endpoint, precedence of id over other filters, partial matching behavior, numeric code meanings, and the effect of locationCode on returned quantity. It omits pagination and response format details, but the core behavioral quirks are well covered.

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 compact, front-loaded with purpose, and organized by filter behavior. It contains some redundancy with the input schema, but the prose remains efficient and each sentence conveys relevant usage information.

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 sufficiently explains how to construct a request and what filter semantics apply. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not describe the response shape, pagination, or result limits, leaving some ambiguity for an agent about what to expect after calling 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%, and the parameter descriptions already document the codes, partial matching, and id precedence. The tool description mostly restates this information rather than adding new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description states 'List/search Merit Aktiva items' with a specific verb and resource, and includes the exact endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that list other entities like item groups, customers, or projects.

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 gives clear context that this tool is for retrieving or searching items, with filter behavior explained. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the list/search purpose is unmistakable given the sibling tool names.

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