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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds substantial context beyond them: deterministic newest-first ordering, a hard 100-item ceiling, the 2-hour/7-day/forever retention policy by tier, the exact fields returned, and a warning that list and column names are customer data rather than instructions. The trailing "Free." also flags cost behavior.

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 core scope and constraints are front-loaded in the first clause, with return fields and retention following in a logical order. It is dense but nearly every element is load-bearing; the one-word "Free." is efficient rather than wasteful.

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 output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and it covers pagination limits, ordering, retention/expiry, and a prompt-injection caveat. For a single-parameter read tool, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 single `limit` parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its 1–100 range and default of 25. The description restates the same cap and default but adds no new syntax or semantics, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List active, non-expired Hosted Lists in this workspace") plus ordering, cap, and default, which separates it cleanly from the other list_* siblings (flows, prompts, sheets, schedules, page templates, models). An agent can identify the exact collection returned without opening the 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?

Gives a concrete use case — "resume a list across chats without re-uploading" — which tells the agent when this tool is the right entry point. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., use get_rows to read rows, purge_lists to clean up), so it is clear context without routing rules.

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