List operations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld. The description usefully adds the sourced endpoint and a provenance caveat ("Inferred from the SingleOps web app's own traffic; confirm results"), which honestly signals low-confidence derivation. It says nothing about pagination, result volume, or filtering 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?

Front-loaded and short, with the endpoint immediately after the purpose. The enumerated return-key list is somewhat noisy but is the tool's only return-value disclosure given there is no output schema.

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?

Annotations carry the safety profile and the description enumerates return keys in lieu of an output schema, which is adequate. Missing the domain meaning of "operations" and any routing versus the many sibling list/search tools leaves the definition only minimally viable.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters (extra_query, response_format) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning about what query parameters are accepted or how response_format interacts with the returned key list.

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 verb and resource ("List operations") plus the underlying endpoint, but never explains what an "operation" is in this domain. With siblings like singleops_read_get_operation_performance_report and singleops_read_lead_list_operations, the description gives no basis for distinguishing this tool.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. The only directive is a generic caveat to "confirm results," which is not usage guidance.

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