List marketing automations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that — the implicit Home-folder (0) scoping when folder_id is omitted, and the fact that status/folder/dates are returned. Missing pagination behavior, but the folder-scoping disclosure is the high-value detail.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the filtering and default behavior. Slightly list-like in the first sentence but every clause carries information.

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?

For a read-only list tool with safety covered by annotations and all three params documented, the description supplies the key operational caveat (Home folder default) and the returned fields. An output schema is absent but the description implies the shape sufficiently; only pagination/response-envelope detail is unaddressed.

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%, with each of the three params documented, so the schema carries the semantics. The description largely restates the folder default already in the schema and adds no format or syntax detail beyond it; baseline 3 applies.

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 the specific resource (marketing automations / email journeys) and the fields exposed (status, folder, dates), which is more than a tautology of the name. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling get_marketing_automation, but the list-vs-get distinction is apparent from the names.

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?

Gives concrete filtering guidance ('filter by dashboard folder and/or part of the name') and, importantly, warns that without folder_id the API lists only the Home folder (0). It stops short of naming alternative tools or when not to use it, but the default-folder caveat is genuinely actionable.

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