List Message Blasts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds real content-level context about what the read returns (automated vs one-time templates, trigger state, scheduled blasts) and the navigation path 'Promotion > Message Blasts'. It does not describe ordering, field shape, or whether disabled templates are included, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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?

Two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the resource definition and followed by scope and sibling routing. There is mild redundancy between 'Message Blast templates (automated and one-time)' and the later enumeration of the same two categories, but 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 input parameters and no output schema, the description must convey what comes back, and it does so at the category level. It is nearly complete for a simple list tool; only the returned field detail and pagination behavior are left unstated, which is a minor gap here.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies. The description correctly implies no filtering arguments are needed.

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 names a specific verb (list/read) and resource (Message Blast templates and scheduled blasts), then enumerates the three data classes covered: automated templates with trigger and on/off state, one-time templates, and scheduled blasts. It is clearly distinguishable from send_message_blast and estimate_message_blast, which are named as the write/count siblings.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent to the right alternatives: send_message_blast for sending a one-time message and estimate_message_blast for counting recipients and SMS cost first. That effectively implies this tool is the read/browse step before sending, though it never states an explicit 'do not use this to send' exclusion or any preconditions.

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