get_lists

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a small behavioral note that the owned mode defaults to the account, which is useful context, but discloses nothing about rate limits, auth requirements, or the differing return shape per mode.

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 telegraphic fragments with no wasted words, and the mode enumeration is front-loaded right after the verb. The staccato style is slightly cryptic but earns its place by packing mode/purpose into one line.

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 6-parameter, four-mode tool with no output schema, the description omits what each mode returns, how max_results and pagination_token interact, and any auth context. The one required parameter is explained, but an agent still lacks enough to invoke it confidently across modes.

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?

With 67% schema coverage the schema documents user/account/max_results/pagination_token but leaves list_id bare and never maps which parameters apply to which type. The description supplies exactly that mapping (owned consumes user, while info/members/posts consume list_id), adding real 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?

"Read Lists" is a thin verb+resource; the real content is the enumeration of the four type modes (owned/info/members/posts). It clarifies the modes but does not distinguish this tool from siblings like list_action or get_posts, and never states what a "List" is in this API. Adequate but not sharp.

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 names the type values but gives no when-to-use guidance: it never says whether to reach for get_lists versus list_action, get_posts, or search. No prerequisites, no exclusions. The enum list is closer to parameter documentation than usage routing.

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