customerthermometer_get_recipient_lists

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 core behavior (listing all recipient lists with names and IDs) and implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention authentication, pagination, or response shape. This is adequate for a simple list tool but minimal.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the operation, resource, scope, and output fields with no wasted words. It earns its place entirely.

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 simplicity (no params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is nearly complete: it states the account scope and what is returned. The only minor gap is not specifying the return format (e.g., array of objects), but this is not critical for a list-all 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate since the description correctly omits any parameter-related text.

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 a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('recipient lists'), and the exact output fields ('names and IDs') on a defined scope ('the Customer Thermometer account'). This distinguishes it from siblings like customerthermometer_get_thermometers or customerthermometer_get_credits without needing to open schemas.

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 implies usage: you call this when you need recipient list names and IDs. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference alternatives such as customerthermometer_add_recipient_to_list or customerthermometer_unsubscribe_recipient, leaving selection to inference.

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