list_scope_exclusions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the purpose statement, such as what the exclusions represent or how they relate to the program's reward rules.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scoping qualifier is placed where it matters. It is efficient, though it is so terse that it omits useful detail rather than being optimally sized.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with one required parameter undocumented and no usage guidance against siblings, the definition is only minimally complete for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 0% and the description never explains the required 'handle' parameter. The phrase 'a program excludes' weakly implies handle identifies the program, but no format, source, or lookup guidance is given, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (List) and resource (report categories a program excludes from rewards), and the qualifier 'beyond core ineligible findings' scopes it away from the baseline ineligible list. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly name the closest sibling (list_structured_scopes) for contrast.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus list_structured_scopes or the other scope-related siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The phrase 'beyond core ineligible findings' implies it is an addendum list but leaves the agent to infer when it is the right tool.

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