listUnsubscribes

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), the description adds significant behavioral details: pagination is cursor-based (limit, page), filter/sort mechanisms are explained with reference to rules for operators, and the return format is described. This covers read-only behavior, pagination, and filtering in a transparent manner.

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 tightly written with labeled sections (Purpose, Use when, Pagination, Filter/sort, See also, Returns). Every sentence serves a purpose, no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured for easy scanning.

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 complexity (7 parameters, pagination, filtering), the description covers usage, pagination, filtering, and return format thoroughly. It references external rules for full detail, which is acceptable. It could include error handling or edge cases, but overall it is complete enough for effective use.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the pagination pattern ('cursor-based') and referencing external rules for filter operators, which provides context beyond the raw schema. It does not repeat parameter details but offers higher-level 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 explicitly states the tool 'List unsubscribe records - Paginated enumeration of unsubscribe records. Read-only.' It clearly identifies the resource (unsubscribe records) and the action (list), and distinguishes from the sibling 'getUnsubscribe' (single record by ID). The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 concrete usage scenarios: 'Use when: auditing the email unsubscribe list - useful for compliance (GDPR, CAN-SPAM) or before launching a new email campaign.' It also directs to the alternative 'getUnsubscribe' for single-record retrieval, offering clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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