List Bounces

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: pagination behavior and a hard cap of 10,000 results. This gives the agent useful expectations about response volume and limitations without contradicting the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence. It states the core action and key constraints (optional filters, pagination, max results) in ten words, with no redundant wording or filler.

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 this is a straightforward search/list tool with a rich input schema and an output schema present, the description covers the essential selection and invocation cues. It omits an explicit comparison to siblings like get_bounce, but this is not critical for a self-explanatory list function. The 10,000-result cap is a useful completeness detail.

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 80%, and the input schema itself includes descriptions for most parameters (count, offset, fromdate, todate, etc.). The description's phrase 'optional filters' adds a high-level grouping but does not explain specific parameters beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Search'), the resource ('bounces'), and the primary capability ('optional filters'). It also adds pagination and a result limit, which distinguishes it from related tools like get_bounce (single bounce) and get_bounce_counts (counts).

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 when to use this tool: when you need to search/filter a list of bounces. The pagination info and optional filters set clear context for a list operation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the core use case is obvious enough for a search tool.

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