List checks

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), the description adds that default sort is most-recent first, and that counting via `include` is cheaper than pagination. It also clarifies filter semantics with examples, which annotations do not cover.

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 three sentences, each serving a clear purpose: purpose statement, critical usage tip, and filter/sort summary. It is front-loaded with the most important information, very concise without losing necessary details.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, filters, counting needs) and no output schema, the description covers key aspects: listing, efficient counting, filtering options, and default sorting. It enables effective use without needing to refer to external documentation.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema: it emphasizes the `include` parameter usage for counting, provides filter examples for `date_created` and `send_date`, and notes that `include` is not accepted on nested endpoints. This complements the 88% schema coverage effectively.

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 clearly states the tool lists checks on Lob account. It specifies the verb (list) and resource (checks) and provides specific usage details like filtering and counting, distinguishing it from other siblings that operate on different resources or actions.

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 gives explicit guidance: for counting, use `include: ['total_count']` with `limit: 1` and never paginate to count. It also explains how to filter by date and metadata. This directly helps the agent choose appropriate parameters.

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