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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description does add two non-schema facts: the call is free and each entry carries a size, but it says nothing about pagination limits or what the size unit means.

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?

Two terse fragments with no padding, and the unusual-but-relevant cost attribute leads. It is slightly under-specified rather than verbose, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present, rich annotations, and full parameter documentation, the description only needs to establish purpose and routing, and it establishes purpose only minimally. It omits any mention of the default/maximum page size or how to continue paging, and gives no signal to distinguish it from the sibling get_list.

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% – both 'limit' (1–100, default 25) and 'cursor' are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or meaning beyond that, so it sits at the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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 fragment 'Lists in this workspace with their size' names the resource (lists) and hints at the returned field (size), so the intent is inferable, but no explicit verb is used and it does nothing to separate itself from the sibling get_list, which an agent could easily confuse for enumeration.

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?

'Free' signals that calls are not billed or quota-limited, which is useful context, but there is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as get_list or list_filter_values, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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