list_lead_lists

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

No annotations or output schema are present, so the description carries the burden of describing behavior. It does disclose the returned fields (id, name) and implies a read-only list operation, but it omits details such as ordering, pagination, and the effect of the limit parameter.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical adds compact, useful return-shape 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 simple list operation with only one optional parameter, the description is mostly usable, but it is thin. It does not explain limit semantics, result ordering, or how the response is structured beyond naming two fields, leaving gaps for an agent that must invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all. The parameter name and default value are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning and fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level descriptions.

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 is specific: 'List lead lists' names the exact verb and resource, and the parenthetical '(id, name)' states what each result contains. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_leads and create_lead_list.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool vs. alternatives. An agent may infer from the tool name that it is for reading lead lists, but there is no explicit context, prerequisite, or contrast with sibling tools such as create_lead_list.

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