list_recipients

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses important behavioral traits beyond the tool name: case-insensitive matching and ordering by oldest first. 'List' also clearly signals a read-only operation, though it does not describe return shape or empty-result behavior.

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 entire description is one efficient sentence. It front-loads the verb and resource, then adds the two most decision-relevant modifiers (case-insensitive, oldest first). There is no redundant or filler 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?

For a simple one-parameter read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does, how the parameter behaves, and the result ordering. It could mention pagination or limits, but that is a minor gap for this kind of tool.

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 schema already documents the email parameter fully with format and description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that matching is case-insensitive, which is a meaningful behavioral detail for the parameter not present in the schema.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'stored recipients', and the key scoping condition ('with the given email'). It also adds meaningful specificity with 'case-insensitive' and 'oldest first', making it easy to distinguish from singular get_recipient or other recipient tools.

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 the use case: find all stored recipients matching a specific email. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over get_recipient or other sibling tools, and no exclusion criteria or alternatives are mentioned.

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