list_incomplete_follow_through

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the selection criteria and the 'or' semantics among the three missing conditions, which is useful. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether verification is live or cached, or what the returned records contain beyond matching the criteria.

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 sentence with no filler. The action and criteria are front-loaded, and every word contributes to defining the tool's behavior.

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 zero-parameter listing tool, the description is largely complete: it defines exactly which records are returned. It could add detail about the output shape or ordering, but the absence of parameters and the straightforward nature of the operation keep the gap small.

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 description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps, and the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies.

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 names a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('records'), and three concrete filtering criteria (missing verified WordPress publication, featured-image verification, or completed LinkedIn/X outcomes). It is clear and helps distinguish this tool from generic list/search siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast it with list_update_candidates.

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?

There is no guidance about when to prefer this tool over sibling tools or when not to use it. The intended use is only implied by the purpose statement, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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