list-recipients

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavior. It states a list operation scoped to the account, implying a safe read, but does not disclose pagination, ordering, or the structure of returned recipient objects. The 'all' wording suggests no pagination, but this is not explicit.

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 that is front-loaded with the verb 'List' and provides the necessary scope. There is no wasted wording.

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?

The tool is simple with no input parameters and no output schema. The description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose, but it could be slightly more complete by mentioning the return format (e.g., list of recipient objects with contact details). Given the simplicity, the gap is minor.

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 the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with the resource 'alert recipients' and scope 'all configured in your Updown.io account'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list-checks, create-recipient, and delete-recipient.

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 a read-only operation for viewing recipients, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, though the resource type differentiates it from siblings.

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