List user custom signals

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable non-annotation context: the paginated nature (via pageToken) and the required 'Bot reading' permission, which is a genuine auth prerequisite. It still omits the return shape, but with no output schema that's a minor gap.

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 plus an operational note, front-loaded with the verb+resource. The title line is duplicated as the first sentence, which is slight redundancy, but overall it's efficient and earns its space.

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 single-parameter read-only list tool with full schema coverage, this covers purpose, permission prerequisite, and pagination. Nothing an agent critically needs is missing, though return-value expectations are unstated (no output schema exists).

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% and the single pageToken parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds 'Return a paginated list', which corroborates the pagination semantics but contributes nothing the schema doesn't already say. Baseline 3 per rubric when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (user custom signals), and the body clarifies 'user-defined signals'. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like pionex_bot_get_user_signal (singular) or pionex_bot_signal_listener, though the plural 'list' and 'paginated list' give a reasonable hint.

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?

Gives a permission prerequisite ('Requires Bot reading permission') but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the singular get_user_signal sibling. Usage is implied by the list semantics rather than stated.

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