get--v3-lists

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Get mailing lists', offering no information on permissions, rate limits, pagination, response format, or whether it's read-only or has side effects. For a tool with three parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with two words, but this brevity leads to under-specification rather than efficiency. It's front-loaded but lacks necessary detail, making it too sparse for a tool with multiple parameters and no annotations. While not verbose, it doesn't earn its place by providing useful 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?

Given the complexity (3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how parameters affect results, or behavioral aspects like safety or performance. For a retrieval tool in a context with many siblings, this minimal description is inadequate.

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 three parameters (limit, skip, address) with 0% description coverage, meaning their purposes are undocumented. The description 'Get mailing lists' adds no meaning about these parameters, such as that 'limit' controls pagination, 'skip' offsets results, or 'address' filters by email address. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 'Get mailing lists' restates the tool name 'get--v3-lists' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'mailing lists', but lacks detail on scope (e.g., all lists, filtered lists) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get--v3-lists-list_address', which likely retrieves a specific list. This is vague and offers little beyond the name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools such as 'get--v3-lists-list_address' for retrieving a specific list or 'post--v3-lists' for creating lists, nor does it specify any context, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage. This leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.

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