mailkite_list_lists

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It adds the auth-token requirement and the member-count output, but does not describe pagination, return shape, or potential empty-list behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words: purpose, scoping, output content, and the auth requirement are all covered efficiently.

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, read-only listing tool, the description is sufficient: it states the resource, the output detail (member count), and the session-token requirement. No output schema exists, and the description compensates by noting what the response includes.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful scope in 'your contact lists' and clarifies result contents, but there is little parameter-specific meaning to add.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List your contact lists') and adds clarifying scoping ('static, curated broadcast audiences') plus the member-count detail. This clearly differentiates it from sibling list_* tools such as list_broadcasts, list_routes, and list_list_contacts.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use it: to enumerate static, curated broadcast audiences, and it adds the auth prerequisite ('Requires a management session token'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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