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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful return-content context (last-checked timestamp, new/waiting items, removed-at-source items), but there is no output schema, so the return contract is only partially disclosed and auth/refresh behavior is unstated.

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?

A single efficiently constructed sentence with the action front-loaded and no wasted clauses. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter read tool.

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 annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description partially compensates by naming what is returned. It still leaves unclear how this differs from check_source and get_list_updates, and doesn't describe freshness/caching behavior an agent might need.

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 'list' parameter is well documented in the schema (slug, handle/slug, or id). The description adds no additional semantics about acceptable formats or resolution order, 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 (show) and resource (a list's connected source) and enumerates the visible fields: last-checked time, new/waiting items, and items gone at the source. However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings such as check_source or get_list_updates, which a reader could easily confuse it with.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_source, get_list, or get_list_updates. The reader gets the topic but no selection criteria or prerequisites.

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