iqms_quality_ncrs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It indicates the tool lists and filters but provides no details on behavioral traits such as pagination (despite a limit parameter), default ordering, or whether it returns all records if no filters are applied. This is insufficient for a tool with no safety cues.

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 that directly states the purpose and filters. However, it could be restructured to front-load the most critical information (e.g., listing NCRs) and separate filter options more clearly.

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 5 parameters (none required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It fails to explain default behavior, output format, or the effect of omitting filters. This leaves the agent without sufficient context to use the tool reliably.

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 40% (only date parameters described), and the description only lists filterable fields (status, item, reported date) without adding meaning beyond the schema. The 'item' reference is vague, and 'limit' is not mentioned. The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 uses the verb 'List' to specify the action and identifies the resource as 'non-conformances / Corrective Action Requests (CARs / CAPAs)', making the tool's purpose clear. It also mentions filtering options, which helps distinguish it from creation tools like iqms_quality_create_ncr.

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 implicitly indicates that this tool is for listing and filtering non-conformances, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., for creation use iqms_quality_create_ncr). No exclusion criteria or additional context is provided.

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