pitchmachine_list_pitches

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool requires an authenticated account and scopes to the user's own pitches, and implies the response contains pitch_ids. However, it lacks details on default time range, ordering, pagination, or error behavior, leaving some behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by usage contexts and filter names. No filler or redundancy.

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 simplicity (3 optional params, no output schema) the description covers purpose, use cases, and filters adequately. It even hints at the response containing pitch_ids, which is essential for downstream use. Slight void on exact return structure but acceptable for this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description merely names the optional filters (status_filter, since, limit) without adding semantics beyond the schema, so it does not elevate the score above baseline.

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?

Clearly states the action (list pitches) and resource (authenticated Pitch Machine account), with specific use cases: discovering pitch_ids and auditing generated pitches. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_receiver, generate_pitch, and get_pitch_url.

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?

Provides explicit contexts for use: discovering pitch_ids from outside the agent session and auditing agent-generated pitches. While it doesn't state when-not-to-use or name alternatives, the sibling tools perform distinct actions, so the usage guidance is clear and helpful.

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