dnc_list_entries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return composition (both org_upload and platform-managed entries), notes that platform-managed entries block dialing org-wide, and explains the source filter. It lacks details like pagination or read-only nature, but covers the essential behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core purpose. Every sentence provides value: return composition, filter semantics, and parameter details. No wasted words.

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 simple list tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description completely covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how to filter. The provided context is sufficient for correct invocation and understanding the result.

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 no descriptions for parameters (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates by explaining source's allowed values and limit's default. It adds meaning beyond the bare schema, even listing the exact enum values that the schema omits.

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 clearly states 'List DNC entries visible to your organization' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings (dnc_check, dnc_delete_entry, dnc_add_entry) by focusing on listing, and further clarifies the scope (org-uploaded vs platform-managed).

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 provides clear context on what the tool returns and how to filter by source, but does not explicitly mention when to avoid using it or name alternative tools. Since this is a distinct list operation, the implied usage is sufficient for a 4.

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