list_audience_abuse_reports

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds 'Read-only, safe to retry' and 'Max 10 concurrent requests', which are behavioral traits not covered by annotations. However, it doesn't address idempotentHint=false, but that is minor.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections: purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral notes, parameter details, return format. Slightly verbose but all sentences are justified. Could trim 'Authenticated via API key' as it's common, but acceptable.

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?

Complete for a list tool with 4 parameters and an output schema. Covers all aspects: what it does, when to use, parameter details, return fields, authentication, rate limits, and idempotency. No gaps given the complexity.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description includes an 'Args' section that explains each parameter: list_id format and source, count range, offset pagination, account usage. This fully compensates and adds meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'List abuse (spam) complaint reports filed against an audience' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling get_audience_abuse_report which inspects a single report, making the scope 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?

Explicit guidance: 'Use to monitor deliverability health and identify campaigns generating spam complaints.' Also directs to get_audience_abuse_report for detailed inspection of a single report, providing clear alternative.

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