get_saved_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states 'read-only', which is a key behavioral trait, and mentions the return includes the full set of saved leads. However, it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., missing ID), authentication requirements, or potential size implications of the full lead set. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

A single, compact sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and scope. Every word adds value – 'by ID', 'including its full set of saved leads', and 'read-only' are all necessary. No fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, what it returns, and that it is read-only. It does not specify the exact response structure, but the absence of an output schema lowers the burden. The missing details about not-found errors are minor and common to such tools.

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 coverage is 100% – the list_id parameter already includes a description mentioning its origin from list_saved_lists or search_leads. The tool description does not add any new semantic details about the parameter; it only references the list itself. Since the schema fully documents the parameter, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('one saved lead list by ID') and explicitly states the scope ('including its full set of saved leads'). It also adds the read-only qualifier, distinguishing it from mutating operations. This clearly separates it from siblings like list_saved_lists (which likely returns multiple lists) and search_leads.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you have a specific list_id and need a single list with its leads. It also notes the ID can come from list_saved_lists or search_leads responses, which provides context for obtaining the parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools, leaving some inference to the agent.

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