List Transactional Push

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results carry delivery status and a display caution about not surfacing ids/timestamps unprompted, which is useful output-level context, but it says nothing about auth needs, ordering, or rate limits.

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 sentences, each doing work: scope, definition/contrast with campaigns, and a presentation rule. It is front-loaded on what the tool returns, though the final UI-guidance sentence is somewhat tangential to tool invocation.

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 output schema, the description compensates by indicating the return payload includes delivery status, and the transactional-versus-campaign distinction prevents misuse of the sibling campaign listers. Minor gaps remain around ordering and pagination behavior, but the core is covered.

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 coverage is 100% with all three cursor/limit parameters fully described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about pagination semantics or parameter behavior beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (transactional push) plus the payload returned (delivery status). It explicitly differentiates from the closest sibling by defining transactional sends as one-off API messages 'not campaigns', so an agent can separate it from list-push-campaigns without opening either schema.

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?

The description effectively scopes when this tool applies by defining transactional messages versus campaigns, which routes the agent correctly. However it never names list-push-campaigns or any alternative, and gives no explicit when-not condition, so usage is implied rather than stated.

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