list_partnersList active retail partners with audiobook counts. Required for transparency / disclosure when an agent needs to explain HOW audioknihy.cz monetises recommendations (we are an affiliate aggregator, not a retailer).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds no further behavioral details, such as response size or rate limits, which would be useful but are not critical given the simple nature of 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 two sentences long, front-loading the purpose (list active partners with counts) and then adding essential usage context. Every sentence is informative and there is no fluff.
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 simplicity (no parameters, output schema present), the description fully covers what the tool does and when to use it. No additional information is needed for effective agent usage.
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 tool has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. With zero parameters, the description does not need to add parameter semantics; the baseline score of 4 is appropriate.
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 active retail partners with audiobook counts, specifying both the verb 'List' and the resource. It is distinct from sibling tools, which focus on browsing genres, comparing offers, or getting specific entities.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool: for transparency/disclosure about how the site monetizes recommendations. It provides clear context, though it does not mention when not to use or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose. Overlapping functions like price comparison are differentiated by granularity (full table vs. cheapest), and search tools are separated by query style (free-form vs. filters).
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase underscores (e.g., get_audiobook, search_audiobooks, list_partners). The verbs (browse, compare, find, get, list, search) are appropriate and consistently applied.
With 13 tools, the set is well-scoped for an audiobook catalog and price comparison service. It covers discovery, search, detail retrieval, price analysis, and market statistics without being overwhelming.
The tool surface covers core operations: search, browsing genres, detailed profiles for audiobooks/authors/narrators/publishers, price comparison and trends, rankings, and partner listings. Minor gaps exist, such as no tool for listing all audiobooks without a search query, but the coverage is still very strong.