x_api_get_lists_by_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it states read-only risk, required OAuth/bearer permissions, environment-selection behavior for tenant principal resolution, and common failure conditions. It also warns that read-only responses can contain sensitive account data, adding meaningful safety 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 organized into labeled sections and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is longer than average but each section contributes; minor redundancy exists in repeating 'Get List by ID' and read-only risk.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description defines the expected response shape and covers permissions, failure modes, and an example invocation. This is a high level of contextual completeness for a wrapper around a single GET endpoint.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains id as a required path parameter and clarifies the roles of scopeTenantId, scopeUserId, scopeAccountId, and credentialKey in environment/auth selection. However, authorizationKey and preferredAuthType are not explained, leaving some parameters to rely on their names/enum.

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 opening sentence 'Get List by ID' uses a specific verb and resource, and the name further disambiguates from sibling list-related endpoints (followers, members, posts). It clearly identifies this as a single-resource GET.

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 explicitly provides a 'Use when' condition, a 'Do not use when' exclusion for exploration scenarios, and names alternatives (x_schema_discovery, x_query_suggestion). It also lists recommended prerequisite and follow-up tools, giving an agent clear decision context.

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