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

The annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the output is used as input to list-write tools, and it returns the current version. It does not describe output shape in detail, but the output schema covers that.

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 efficient sentence with a semicolon separates the primary use from the alternative. The most important point, locating the list and retrieving its reference, is front-loaded.

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, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description provides all the extra guidance needed: why to call it, what it returns conceptually, and when to use the sibling instead. Nothing material is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for zero params is 4, and the description does not introduce confusing or extraneous parameter guidance.

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 description names a specific action and resource: locating a list and retrieving the listRef and current version. It explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling get_list by saying get_list is only for item details or listItemRef values.

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?

It states exactly when to call this tool (to get the listRef and version needed by list-write tools) and when to prefer the alternative get_list (only when item details or listItemRef values are needed). No ambiguity remains.

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