List a SmartList

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that the operation returns allowed values/reference lists rather than records, which is useful context. However, it does not describe output format, account-dependent variation, or any other behavioral nuances beyond what the annotations convey. This is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences, each earning its place: what the tool returns, when to use it, and its safety profile. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no fluff or redundancy that weakens the definition.

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 simple list tool with two parameters and one required enum, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the resource, the allowed inputs are in the schema, and the return concept (allowed values) is stated. The absence of an output schema makes a slightly more explicit return-format note desirable, but overall nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both 'list' (enum plus examples) and 'account' (alias/account number with fallback to active account). The description only repeats examples from the schema and adds no new parameter-level semantics, so it sits at the baseline.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Return one of FastBound's reference lists (allowed values).' It then names concrete examples (caliber, manufacturer, type, condition, location, importer) that clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like list_accounts or search_items. The tool's purpose 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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'before creating or editing records' to discover valid values. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the use case is clear enough that an agent can route correctly. The 'Read-only' note reinforces safe usage.

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