Data: list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing further – no mention of pagination defaults, the streaming 'all' behavior, or filter semantics, despite these being non-obvious traits of the tool.

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 single phrase is front-loaded and wastes no words, but for a tool with filtering, pagination, and streaming options it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. It reads as a title restated rather than a deliberate one-line summary.

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?

With 100% schema coverage and readOnly annotations, the structured fields carry most of the burden and no output schema is needed. The gap is routing: nothing tells the agent how this list operation relates to data_get, search_query, or entities_list, which the description should ideally address.

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%, so all five parameters (including filter syntax and pagination) are documented in the schema itself. The description only echoes the 'entity' parameter ('in an entity') and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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') and resource ('records in an entity'), so the operation is immediately understandable. However, it offers no differentiation from sibling read tools like data_get, search_query, or entities_list, leaving the agent to infer scope from the name alone.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as data_get (single record) or search_query (filtered queries), nor any stated prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the word 'List'.

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