ghl_social_csv_list

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by clarifying it's a paginated list (not a single status check), disclosing the endpoint, and noting required parameters (userId). This goes beyond annotations, but it does not detail response behavior or side effects, which are minimal for a read operation.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and pagination notes. It includes endpoint and version details that may be redundant given the schema, but overall it's well-structured with minimal waste. A slightly more concise version could omit the endpoint line.

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?

The description covers the tool's basic function, pagination, and required parameters. However, with no output schema, it does not describe the return format (e.g., list of batch objects with status fields), which would be helpful for an agent to understand the response. Given the tool's simplicity and annotations, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description explicitly mentions skip/limit for pagination and userId as required, adding context. However, it does not explain other parameters like includeUsers or isFromTemplate, which are in the schema but lack additional clarification in the description.

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 tool lists the status of ALL CSV bulk-import batches for a location, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from a potential single-status check by noting the operationId is misleading, and the tool name (csv_list) contrasts with siblings like ghl_social_csv_finalize, ghl_social_csv_upload, and ghl_social_delete_csv.

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 mentions pagination support (skip/limit) and that userId is required, providing usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use list vs. get for individual status), nor does it give exclusion criteria.

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