reach_listSegmentsV1

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the critical behavioral limitation: the endpoint always falls back to the default profile and cannot target other profiles. It also notes deprecation, which is valuable context beyond simple 'list' semantics.

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 three sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, a brief clarifying sentence, and the deprecation note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple, parameterless list endpoint with no output schema, the description covers the main behavior and a key limitation. It could mention response format or pagination, but it is reasonably complete given the tool's simplicity and the available context.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by explaining why there is no profile parameter: the endpoint always uses the client's default profile. This helps an agent understand the lack of parameters.

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 tool lists contact segments with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like listContactGroups or listProfileSegments, though the deprecation note adds context about which endpoint this is.

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 marks the tool as deprecated and recommends an alternative endpoint, providing clear when-not-to-use guidance. It does not, however, state a scenario where this tool should still be used, but the deprecation note effectively steers agents away from it.

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