list_selections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It discloses the scope (account-level), the fact these are curated publishable lists rather than wishlists, and the meaning of status values including private/public/moderation states. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or pagination, but the list semantics and output-focused detail cover the important behavior.

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 compact: one sentence defines and differentiates the resource, a second explains the fields an agent can expect. Every clause earns its place and the most important distinguishing fact (not wishlists) is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the scope, return fields, and status semantics, and links the returned UUIDs to the selection-tool family. It could add an explicit note about what it does not return (e.g., full product data) or authentication requirements, but those gaps are minor.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100% and no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds useful return-value semantics (uuid, product count, Ozon status) even though that is output rather than parameter info, fully compensating.

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 identifies the resource ('account's curated, publishable lists of products') and immediately distinguishes it from wishlists in get_lists(), which is enough to know what it operates on. It stops short of an explicit verb like 'Returns' or 'Lists', so the action is inferred from the tool name rather than stated.

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 tells the agent this is not the wishlist tool (get_lists) and explains that the returned UUIDs are what 'every other selection tool takes', implying list_selections is the entry point for selection operations. It lacks an explicit 'use this when... / use get_lists when...' rule but the context is clear.

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