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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: 'no signature' discloses an authentication requirement, and the pagination bounds (default 50, max 200) disclose result-size behavior. These go beyond what the annotations state.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by auth and pagination notes. Minor redundancy with the schema's pagination descriptions, but no wasted or padding language.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, full schema coverage, and annotations covering safety, the definition supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: auth expectation (no signature) and pagination behavior. Nothing critical is omitted, though it stops short of explicitly differentiating the list siblings.

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 schema already documents limit, offset, and caller. The description's 'caller: the account whose view to read (for caller-dependent results)' adds a small clarifying nuance about caller-dependent behavior, but the pagination values merely restate the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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) and resource (open broadcast lists the caller owns), and the qualifier 'owns' implicitly separates it from sibling geode_messaging_get_my_subscribed_lists. An agent can distinguish this tool from the other list-related siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is implied by 'List the open broadcast lists caller owns' but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative among the many list siblings (get_my_subscribed_lists, get_my_inbox_lists, find_lists_by_keyword). The caller parameter note hints at context but does not route the agent.

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