list_appeals

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of disclosure. It openly states the tool is read-only ('List'), the data is 'small, rarely-changing,' and that results are 'cached for this session after the first call.' This is valuable behavioral context beyond just the schema. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, zero wasted words. The first sentence states purpose, the second provides behavioral context (caching, data nature). Information is front-loaded and every sentence 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?

Given the tool is a simple list with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers purpose, data characteristics, and caching behavior. The only minor gap is not describing the default output format (compact summary), but this is implied by the verbose parameter description.

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 100%, so the single parameter 'verbose' is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or usage guidance beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't enhance parameter semantics but also doesn't need to.

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 explicitly states 'List all appeals configured in LGL,' using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('appeals'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like search_constituents or list_funds by focusing on the appeals entity. The caching hint adds further precision about scope and refresh behavior.

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 use via the verb 'List' and notes it's 'small, rarely-changing reference data' and 'cached for this session after the first call.' This suggests efficiency but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like search_gifts for other lookups. Still, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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