list_saved_lists

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature ('read-only') and notes it returns the full set of leads, which adds transparency. However, it does not describe the response format, potential edge cases (e.g., empty lists), or performance characteristics. For a simple read-only operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence with a clear action and a usage hint. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and adds the usage context at the end. No wasted words or redundant 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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it returns (all saved lists with full leads) and when to use it. It does not mention any limitations or caveats, but for this simple operation, nothing critical is missing. The sibling context is implicitly handled by the 'list all' wording.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific details because none exist. Per the rubric, 0 params warrant a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to compensate for anything.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'saved lead lists', and specifies that it returns the full set of saved leads for each list. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_saved_list, which retrieves a single list, and search_leads, which searches leads. The purpose is 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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when the user asks what they've already saved, or which lists exist.' It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear and actionable. Missing explicit 'when-not' guidance keeps it from a 5.

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