List the accounts on a list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering safety. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide—no pagination details, no mention of default limit, no notes on list ownership or authorization. With annotations carrying the safety profile, the description contributes nothing extra, warranting a score below 3.

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 concise sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple read operation, though it could be more action-oriented. The structure is clean and front-loaded with the resource being described.

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 simple read-only tool with annotations and a partial schema, the description minimally conveys the return value (accounts on a list). However, it lacks context about the required id parameter, any default behavior, or how this relates to list management. Given the simplicity, the missing details are not critical but still noticeable; a more complete description would mention the need for a list ID.

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?

Schema description coverage is 67%, with limit and account having inline descriptions, but id is undocumented. The description text itself does not elaborate on any parameters. The id parameter's semantics are predictable from context (list ID), but the description does not compensate for that gap. Since the schema covers most parameters adequately, a baseline 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 'The accounts on one of your lists.' is a noun phrase that states the resource but lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list'. It is clear enough from the tool name and title, but the description alone does not convey the action. It does distinguish from sibling tools like get_list_timeline by focusing on accounts, but without explicit action language.

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, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing list ID), and no exclusion criteria. Sibling tools like get_lists or get_list_timeline are not referenced, so the agent must infer the intended use from the name alone.

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