my_observing_lists

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the data is account-scoped ('The account's') and previews the returned fields, which is useful context, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what an empty result means.

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?

A single fragment with zero waste and the resource front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does list the key fields (id, name, target count). It is nearly complete for a zero-parameter reader; the only gap is the unspecified relationship to the similarly named 'observing_list' sibling.

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 per the baseline this dimension starts at 4. The description's parenthetical describes returned fields rather than inputs, which is fine since there is nothing to document on the input side.

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 names a concrete resource ('the account's saved observing lists') and enumerates what each entry contains ('id, name, target count'), so an agent can tell it is a retrieval of the user's saved lists. It never states a verb and does not differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling 'observing_list', which is the main reason it falls 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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the sibling 'observing_list' or any other list-returning tool. The agent must infer from the name alone that this returns the account's own lists, with no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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