x_api_get_users_owned_lists

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the operation is read-only, lists required auth scopes, describes environment-selection behavior, expected response shape, common failure conditions, and safety warnings about sensitive data. This far exceeds the minimum and provides rich behavioral 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 well-organized with labeled sections, making it easy to scan. It is longer than necessary in places (e.g., repeating 'Get owned Lists'), but every major section adds value. It is not as concise as ideal, but the structure earns it a strong score.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is quite comprehensive. It covers response shape, failure conditions, auth prerequisites, environment selection, and safety. However, it could elaborate on pagination_token behavior and max_results boundaries, and id is marked 'unknown' despite schema showing a string, leaving minor gaps.

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 has 0% description coverage for its 9 parameters, and the description partially compensates by explaining format/constraints for id, max_results, and pagination_token, plus the environment-selection behavior for scopeTenantId, scopeUserId, scopeAccountId, and credentialKey. However, it leaves authorizationKey and preferredAuthType without explanation, and max_results semantics are incomplete (integer but no range or purpose).

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 states 'Get owned Lists' with a specific verb and resource, which is clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like x_api_get_users_followed_lists or x_api_get_lists_by_id, despite the name hinting at the distinction.

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 includes 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' sections, but the 'Use when' is tautological ('Get owned Lists'). The 'Do not use when' provides some context (exploration/auth tools) and recommends prerequisites, but it does not clearly contrast with alternative list-related tools. This is adequate but not fully explicit.

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