List agent tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, yet the description still adds real behavioral content beyond them: `price_note` semantics per tool (per-page, per-token, settled-after-call), the `api_key_linked` refusal rule ('refused until it is'), opt-in/enabled state, and the `budget` per-row range. It omits return shape/ordering and list size, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Information density is high and nothing is truly filler, but it is delivered as one enormous run-on sentence stitched together with em-dashes and nested parentheticals. The lead line is just the title repeated, so the genuinely useful content is not front-loaded and an agent must parse the whole block to extract the schema of the response.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description correctly takes on the job of describing the returned record in detail, including conditional pricing and key-linkage fields. It is nearly complete; only the container shape (array vs. object), ordering, and volume of the result are left unspecified.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description's field-level vocabulary (`inputs`/`required`, `input_groups`, `returns`) concerns the response payload, not the call signature, and does not confuse the two.

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 opens with a restatement of the title, then specifies the resource precisely: the catalogue of agent tools usable in an enrichment's `only_tools`/`additional_tools` or pinned to an output column, with the fields each entry carries. That is a clear verb+resource. It never names a sibling (e.g. `help`, `get_account`) to draw a boundary, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the reference to `only_tools`/`additional_tools` and pinned output columns tells an agent the context in which this list matters, but there is no explicit 'call this before create_enrichment/update_enrichment' or 'do not use this to look up a specific tool by name'. No alternatives or exclusions are given.

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