list_block_lists

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that results are paginated, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only (though 'list' implies it), nor does it mention any potential side effects, authentication requirements, or error handling. The pagination note adds value, but overall behavioral transparency is minimal.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action verb and resource. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary detail or repetition of schema fields. It is exceptionally concise and well-structured.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema and full parameter descriptions, the description is adequate. It identifies the resource, scope, and pagination behavior, which covers the essential context. It could optionally mention what a block list contains or whether results are ordered, but these are not critical gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (`after`, `limit`, `fields`) already described in the input schema. The description does not add additional meaning beyond that, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema is sufficient.

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 the tool lists publisher block lists for the ad account, using the specific verb 'List' and identifying the resource ('publisher block lists') and scope ('ad account'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_block_list or delete_block_list, which perform different operations.

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 implies usage by naming the operation (list) and scope, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. For example, there is no mention of 'use this to view all block lists' or 'for creating, use create_block_list instead.' Thus, usage guidance is implied but not clearly articulated.

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