list_targets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails it: nothing about pagination defaults (offset/limit max 500), the default compact=true behavior, permission requirements, or whether filtering is server-side. The only behavioral crumb is 'with scores', which hints at payload contents but not its shape.

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?

Six words is short but under-specified rather than concise — there is no wasted language, but there is also no front-loaded information beyond a noun phrase. Conciseness should not come at the cost of the minimum needed to call the tool.

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 10-parameter, non-annotated, output-schema-less list tool, this description is drastically incomplete. There is no explanation of return shape, pagination behavior, default compact output, or how the score field relates to min_score/label filters.

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?

Ten parameters with 30% schema description coverage, and several have empty descriptions (offset, search, min_score, program_id, competition, eligibility enum). The description adds no meaning for any parameter — it never mentions type, label, min_score, compact, or eligibility, so the agent must infer arguably the most consequential filters.

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 phrase 'Targets of one program with scores' identifies the resource (targets scoped to a program) and hints at the returned data (scores), but the verb is only implied and there is no differentiation from siblings like search_targets, export_targets, or watchlist_new_targets. An agent can guess it is a list operation, but cannot tell from the description alone why it should pick this over search_targets.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is mentioned despite three sibling tools operating on targets (search_targets, export_targets, watchlist_new_targets). The only usable signal is the phrase 'of one program', which implies program scoping but is not framed as guidance.

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