get_lists_for_email

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes a simple read operation without disclosing edge cases (e.g., empty result) or authentication requirements. Adequate for a straightforward lookup, but lacks extra behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence of 11 words that conveys the essential purpose without waste. Every word earns its place.

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 lookup with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's function. It does not specify the return format (e.g., list of list IDs or full list objects), but the tool name implies the nature of the result. Minor gap in completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema: 'for a client' mirrors the client_id parameter, and the email parameter is already well-described. No additional semantic value.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('lists'), and the scope ('for a particular email address for a client'), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_lists (returns all lists) and get_subscriber (returns subscriber details).

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance; the purpose implies use when needing lists for an email, but alternatives are not mentioned. Given the context among many get_* tools, the usage is clear enough.

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