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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the default visibility scope (public lists only) and the underlying endpoint GET /api/v1/sub_lists/show, but says nothing about pagination or result volume for a potentially unbounded listing.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the resource definition and default scope front-loaded before the usage hint and endpoint. Every sentence carries information.

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 one-optional-parameter read-only listing with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return shape (id, name, position, timestamps) and the default filtering scope, which are exactly the gaps structured fields leave open.

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 include_all is already documented as 'Also include non-public lists.' The description reinforces this with a default-behavior statement ('Public lists only unless include_all is true'), which clarifies the omission semantics beyond the bare schema text.

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 (the account's sub lists), and disambiguates the term by glossing it as 'the lists contacts belong to'. It also enumerates the returned fields (id, name, position, timestamps), which separates it cleanly from siblings like robly_list_contacts, robly_list_fields, and robly_create_sub_list.

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 concrete downstream guidance ('Use the ids for list filters and for adding contacts'), which routes the agent to follow-on tools like robly_add_contact_to_list. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative for membership checks (robly_check_list_membership), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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