List metadata simulations

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, non-open-world), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: exact row composition, the fact that only the TITLE is included, that subtitle/keywords/description are omitted, and how to retrieve the omitted fields. This is unusually rich disclosure for a list 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?

Front-loaded with scope, then return contents, then the routing hint. The middle inventory sentence is long but each field listed earns its place given there is no output schema. No filler sentences.

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 no output schema and no docs beyond the description, the description carries the return-value burden itself and does so completely: scoping, ordering, row contents, omissions, and the follow-up call. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 page, search and per_page are already documented in structured data, and the description adds nothing about them. It does clarify the semantics of the returned `id` field as an input to get_metadata_simulation, which is mild added value but not parameter-level detail.

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 specific verb and resource ('list the listing drafts already scored on this account') plus scope details: newest first, includes runs from both the API and the dashboard. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling get_metadata_simulation, which it names as the full-detail counterpart.

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?

Explicitly states the use case ('find a past score without re-running it') and names the alternative tool for reading a draft in full. It doesn't spell out when not to use it (e.g., versus simulate_metadata for fresh runs), so it falls just short of full when/when-not coverage.

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