List Flagged Contents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds a genuinely useful operational fact — that every page counts against the API quota and all_pages is bounded — but says nothing about error behavior, rate limits, or what the returned continuation state looks like.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the purpose before the operational caveat. Efficient overall, though the 'Reads community data' fragment is close to filler and could be folded into the first sentence.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description ideally would hint at the return shape (flagged items plus continuation state) and default paging behavior. It covers the quota cost and bounded paging, but an agent still lacks a clear picture of what comes back from a six-parameter optional-argument list 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% and all six parameters are documented in the schema itself, including the quota and continuation semantics for all_pages/max_items. The description only reiterates the all_pages/quota point, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (list flagged contents) and clarifies it reads community data, which separates it from the write-side sibling report_flagged_content. It does not explicitly name or contrast with that sibling, so it lands just 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?

No statement of when to use this versus report_flagged_content or any other listing tool, and no prerequisites or exclusion conditions. The only guidance is operational ('supports bounded all_pages'), which is behavior rather than selection advice.

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