list_contact_lists

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool lists account-level contact lists and enumerates the fields returned (id, name, default flag, notification channels). However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, mention pagination behavior, or note any authentication/authorization requirements. The 'list' wording implies non-mutating behavior, but this is not explicitly reinforced.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that immediately state the primary function and then detail the output fields. It is front-loaded with the core action and provides no unnecessary 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?

This is a simple list tool with only pagination parameters and an output schema. The description sufficiently covers the tool's scope and the content of the returned data. Since an output schema exists, no further return format explanation is needed. Minor omissions like pagination details are already handled by the schema, so the description is mostly complete for this low-complexity tool.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the two parameters (page and per_page), each with clear descriptions and defaults. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List contact lists configured on the account.' It uses a specific verb ('list') and identifies the resource ('contact lists'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on resources like monitors, blacklists, or scheduled maintenance. The scope ('configured on the account') adds precision.

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 the tool (when you need to list contact lists) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives. There are no sibling tools that overlap with contact lists, so context is clear, but no direct exclusions or alternative references are given.

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