get_list_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds data-scope behavior ('company-level only, never contact details') and that it returns the latest list, but says nothing about freshness, permissions, or whether a missing list errors versus returns empty.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and contents, followed by the scope constraint. No filler or redundancy.

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 does carry the burden of describing returns and lists the top-level fields (company count, funnel, companies). However 'funnel' is left undefined, no pagination/limits are mentioned, and the required client parameter is unexplained, so it is only minimally sufficient.

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 0% for the single required 'client' parameter, so the description must compensate and does not: it only implies a client selector exists. No identifier format, whether it is an ID or name, or what happens for an unknown client is given.

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 resource (a client's latest prospect list) and enumerates its contents: company count, funnel and companies. The closing clause 'company-level only, never contact details' separates it from contact-level siblings like get_prospect_brief, though no sibling is named outright.

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?

There is no statement of when to pick this over get_prospect_brief, rank_prospects, or get_signals for the same client. The scope note ('company-level only') is the only weak discriminator, leaving the agent to infer usage from the return contents.

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