list_allowlist

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the authentication requirement (agent key), the scope of entries, and that spend caps are included. It does not explicitly state the return format or error behavior, but for a read-only list operation, this is adequate context.

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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no redundant or filler words. Every clause adds value (scope, exclusions, authentication requirement).

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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, this description is complete: it states the purpose, scope, exclusions, and a prerequisite. It gives enough detail for an agent to decide when to use it and what to expect.

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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on the tool's behavior rather than parameter details, which is unnecessary here.

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 clearly states it lists the agent's merchant-allowlist entries, specifying the scope (host 'api' and payee 'vendor' policies) and explicitly mentioning spend caps. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_allowlist_mode or add/remove allowlist entries by defining its exact resource and function.

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 provides usage context by stating what the tool includes and excludes (session/task spend policies are excluded) and notes the prerequisite of an agent key. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for the excluded policies, so it misses the full 'when to use vs. alternatives' guidance that a 5 would require.

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