shared_lists_list

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

The annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description's real contribution is the payload contract: it declares this is a preview endpoint and that only name/type/item count are returned, warning the agent not to expect items. It says nothing about pagination or result size, which would be useful on an unmetered 'every shared list' call.

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 with zero filler. The scope constraint (what is returned) is front-loaded, followed by the pointer to the sibling, which is exactly the order an agent needs.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does so: it enumerates the exact fields returned and tells the agent where to go for the full record. For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool with annotations already covering safety, nothing material is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter detail because there is none to add, and none is needed.

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 verb+resource ('Get Shared Lists') and immediately bounds scope: 'Returns only the name, type and item count of every shared list.' It also names the sibling that returns the detail payload, so an agent can distinguish shared_lists_list from shared_lists_get without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the alternative ('Use "Get Shared List by name" to fetch the items themselves'), which tells it when this list view is insufficient. No exclusions or prerequisites are given (e.g. auth scope, whether lists are paginated), so it falls short of a full when/when-not treatment.

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