upservice_list_directories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that there is no pagination and it returns all directories, which is useful but limited. No mention of rate limits, errors, or authentication.

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 with two short paragraphs and clear headings for Args and Returns. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured with bullet points.

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 annotations and output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior (no pagination), and return type. It is adequate for a simple list tool, though it omits error handling or edge cases.

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 description simply lists parameter names (parent, search, id, manager) and notes they are optional, which adds no meaning beyond the input schema. The schema already describes each parameter fully, so the description provides no additional semantics.

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 the tool lists custom directories (reference catalogs) defined in the account, with examples like assets, contacts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_directory (single directory) or list_directory_records.

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 behavioral context (no pagination) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of when not to use it, making it adequate but not explicit.

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