fcrm list lists

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses a genuine behavioral constraint the annotations don't cover: the required `fcrm_manage_contact_cats` capability and its enforcement via ListPolicy::verifyRequest(). It does not describe pagination limits or response shape, but the auth disclosure is substantive.

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?

The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the optional behaviors follow. The bolded capability line and policy citation are somewhat noisy formatting for a read tool, but the content is not padded.

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?

For a 9-param, zero-required read tool with a fully documented schema and read-only annotations, the description covers purpose, optional enrichments, and the access requirement. No output schema exists, but the paginated-list return shape is inferable from the parameters; nothing critical is missing.

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 schema already documents all nine parameters including `with`, `all_lists`, and `exclude_counts`. The description restates the subscriber-count and dropdown behaviors already in the schema, adding no new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is correct.

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+resource ("Retrieve a paginated list of contact lists") and names the two optional enrichments, so an agent can tell it apart from fcrm_list_contacts. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the nearest sibling, but the resource distinction is unambiguous.

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 description implies usage contexts (dropdown/select usage via `all_lists`, subscriber counts via `with`), which is better than nothing. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives such as fcrm_list_contacts or fcrm_search_contacts.

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