list_lead_lists

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'pagination', which is a key behavioral trait not evident from the schema alone, adding value. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, response format, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for a list operation.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List all lead lists') and adds essential context ('with pagination') without waste. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's low complexity (list operation with 2 parameters) and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and pagination but lacks details on return values, error handling, or integration with siblings. For a tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context to be fully complete.

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 the schema fully documents both parameters ('limit' and 'starting_after'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying pagination, which is already covered in the schema's descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 verb ('list') and resource ('lead lists'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_lead_list' (creation vs listing) and 'list_leads' (lists vs leads), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list operations. The description is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation beyond the obvious.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or comparisons with other list operations (like 'list_campaigns' or 'list_leads'). The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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