List collection data

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses key behavioral details: paging follows a 'live keyset walk,' items can be skipped or repeated, pages contain limit/total/next_cursor, and match has operator semantics. This adds substantial operational context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 dense but every sentence contributes: purpose, UI exclusion, page shape, filter semantics, and paging caveat. It front-loads the core behavior and groups related concepts cleanly without redundant restatement of schema fields.

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 5-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers selection scope, filtering operators, paging behavior, and edge cases. The output schema handles return-value structure, so nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 already high at 80%, but the description adds crucial meaning: it explains the match parameter's bare-value-equals behavior, lists available operators, and specifies numeric versus lexicographic comparison. It also clarifies paging semantics tied to limit and cursor beyond the schema descriptions.

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: 'Read items in full,' and explicitly states the output includes 'every field, plus the item id you need to update or delete it.' It also distinguishes itself from a UI tool ('No UI (use open_app for that)'), making its scope clear relative to siblings.

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 gives explicit routing guidance by stating 'No UI (use open_app for that)' and frames the tool as the way to obtain item IDs needed for update or delete operations. This tells an agent when to use data_list versus relevant alternatives like open_app or mutation tools.

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