list_data_key_targets

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It states 'List all' but does not mention pagination via limit/offset, which is slightly misleading. It also omits any mention of read-only safety, permissions, or return format. The description adds minimal value beyond the tool name.

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, concise sentence with a useful parenthetical, containing zero filler. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it sacrifices some informational value for brevity, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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 operation, the description provides enough to understand the core purpose. However, the lack of output schema and annotations means the description should clarify return behavior and usage context, which it does not. The mention of 'all' contradicts the pagination parameters, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 input schema covers both parameters (limit and offset) with clear descriptions, achieving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, but none is required given the schema's completeness.

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 a list operation on 'data key targets' and adds a parenthetical explaining what they are ('targeting rules using data key values'), which disambiguates from other target types. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like list_data_targets, which also list targets, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the large number of sibling list tools (e.g., list_data_targets, list_geo_targets), the description offers no context on selection criteria or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the name.

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