list_opt_out_entries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'List entries'—implying a read operation without detailing side effects, return format, pagination behavior, or ordering. It does not mention that the operation is read-only or what the response structure contains, which is a significant gap for an agent invoking the tool.

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 description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action and lists the optional parameters. It avoids verbosity, but the terseness sacrifices critical contextual information. Still, it is appropriately sized for the information it conveys, so a score of 4 is reasonable for conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, 1 required, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the response will contain (e.g., list of entries with fields), how pagination works beyond limit/offset, or how the status and phone filters interact. An agent lacks enough context to fully understand the tool's behavior and expected output, making completeness insufficient.

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 each parameter has a basic description (e.g., 'Page size', 'Phone search'). The tool description adds only 'Optional status, phone, limit, offset', which repeats the optionality already implied by the schema. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the description provides minimal additional semantic value, aligning with the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'entries on an opt-out list', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_opt_out_lists (which lists the lists themselves) and check_opt_out (which likely checks a single entry). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other list tools, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios such as 'use this to retrieve all entries for a given list' or when to prefer check_opt_out or create_opt_out_entry. The description only states the action and optional parameters, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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