Build configured list

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

Annotations declare mutation, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive; the description adds the parts annotations cannot: it is asynchronous, credits are charged, `max_credits` causes a 422 with nothing charged, `estimate_cost` prices without running, and a webhook can receive results. It also says exactly where the output lands (`dataset_id` → `list_dataset_rows`).

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then example, then workflow — easy to scan. There is mild redundancy: 'Run a configured list build' and the Workflow's 'Starts an async run of a configured list build' restate the same fact, and the inline markdown links duplicate the sibling names used in Workflow.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates fully by naming the return value (the list-build run), how to poll it, where rows materialize, and the follow-up enrichment call. For a 6-parameter async mutation this is complete enough to invoke correctly on the first try.

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, but the description adds real meaning: `parameters` are values for the template's `{{ placeholder }}` keys, illustrated with a concrete JSON example. `tier` and `dataset_webhook_url` are left to the schema, so it stops short of a 5.

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 and resource ('Run a configured list build') and explains the distinguishing mechanism: the spec, prompt template, row cap, and credit cost live on a reusable template (id `cds_...`) so the caller only supplies `parameters`. That functionally separates it from `build_dataset`, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 Workflow block gives an explicit when-and-then sequence with named siblings: start the run, poll `get_run`, read rows via `list_dataset_rows`, then `enrich`. It does not state when *not* to use it (e.g. to define an ad-hoc spec, use `build_dataset`), so the alternative routing is implied rather than stated.

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