List creations

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

Though readOnlyHint is present, the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotation: pagination via nextBeforeDate, mode mutual exclusivity, random selection behavior, row-level fields (nsfwFlagged, nsfwRate, viewUrl), and the note that it 'costs nothing.' No contradictions with 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 dense but every sentence earns its place. It uses semicolons to group related constraints and covers modes, cross-cutting filters, pagination, and output row hints without redundancy. Appropriate for a tool with 13 parameters.

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 complex listing tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly covers filter modes, mutual exclusivity, cross-cutting filters, pagination, and row-level fields. It provides enough information for correct invocation without needing additional documentation.

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?

All 13 parameters are already documented in the schema, but the description adds significant semantic value: folderId 'root' for ungrouped, usedRef meaning 'built from', search prefix behavior with '*', smart collection aliases, and pagination cursor semantics. This goes far beyond what the schema alone provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Page through') and resource ('the account's creations'), with additional detail about newest-first ordering and a random mode. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like browse_feed by scoping to the account's own creations.

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 gives clear usage context: it lists account creations and explains the mutually exclusive filter modes and cross-cutting filters. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

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