List topics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds non-obvious behavioral context: list order is not importance, promptCount may exceed list_prompts rows, and a missing website returns setup guidance with an empty payload. This prevents misinterpretation and hallucination.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: payload contents, ordering caveat, count semantics, sibling routing, and the no-website edge case. The description is dense but free of filler and front-loads the core purpose.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers all needed caveats and the failure mode. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and call it correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden on the description. The baseline of 4 applies because the description instead clarifies output semantics and field meanings.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('topic rollups for the account website'), and enumerates the exact fields returned. It clearly differentiates itself from list_prompts by naming per-prompt detail as a separate purpose.

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 tells the agent to use list_prompts when per-prompt detail or coverage-gap counts are needed, implying list_topics for rollups. It also warns that list order is not importance order and gives setup-edge-case handling instructions.

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