search_lists

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results contain lists with items and are sorted by relevance, but omits permissions, pagination, result limits, and empty-result 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by return behavior. Every sentence carries useful information and there is no filler.

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 simple one-parameter search tool this covers the basic purpose and return ordering. However, with no output schema, it should say more about result shape, pagination, and limits to be fully self-sufficient.

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 single query parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds slight nuance by saying matching is by name or topic rather than only schema wording 'object label', but it does not explain matching semantics such as exact vs fuzzy search.

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 states a specific verb ('search') and resource ('curated lists of entities'), including that matching is by name or topic. This is clear enough to separate it from sibling search tools like search_atoms, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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 implies usage by saying lists can be searched by name or topic, but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over search_atoms or search_account_ids. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-routing instructions.

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