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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the auth requirement ('Cotlet API key with access to this app') and the exact shape of what is returned (name plus on/off state), which the annotations cannot convey.

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 first two sentences say nearly the same thing twice ('with name and whether each is on' vs 'with their name and on or off state'), which is wasted space. The remaining content (sibling handoff, auth requirement) earns its place, but the redundancy keeps this from being tight.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the missing pieces: returned fields and the credential requirement. It does not address pagination or result limits, but for a simple zero-arg list tool this is largely complete.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly notes there is nothing to pass and instead describes the output field automation_id, which is the value the caller will forward to a sibling tool.

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 and resource ('list' + 'lead automations, including drips') and specifies the returned fields (name, on/off state). It also names the sibling tool (enroll_lead_in_automation) whose input this output feeds, so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening either 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?

The line 'Pass automation_id to enroll_lead_in_automation' gives a concrete downstream use case that explains why an agent would call this tool. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or any alternative listing tools, but the context is clear.

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