superchat_list_contact_lists_for_contact

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

The description discloses that it returns only one page of results, which is a behavioral trait not covered by the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint). This adds useful context about pagination. It does not contradict any annotations, and while it doesn't discuss rate limits or auth, those are beyond the scope of this simple read operation.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence provides essential usage guidance and sibling differentiation. Every word earns its place.

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?

The combination of a 100%-covered schema, clear annotations, and the description fully equips an agent to call the tool correctly. The only minor gap is that the description does not specify the exact shape of the response, but there is no output schema and the purpose makes the return type obvious. This is a strong, mostly complete definition.

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 the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning about parameters beyond the schema's coverage; it only restates the purpose of contact_id in prose. Per the calibration baseline for high schema coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 action and resource ('List one page of contact lists that contain this contact') and immediately distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting that list_contact_lists and get_contact_list return only list metadata, not participants. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and what it doesn't do without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this to inspect membership' and contrasts against sibling tools that return only metadata, which clearly indicates when to prefer this over the alternatives. It gives a direct use case and implies the condition for choosing the other tools, satisfying the need for 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.