audible_charts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely succeeds: it discloses that this is an HTML scrape rather than an API call, flags the source class as less stable, states that filters were 'individually verified to actually change results,' and documents the mutual-exclusivity constraint. This is strong context beyond the schema, though it omits rate limits, caching, and failure 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?

Three sentences of roughly 90 words with the core purpose front-loaded. Every clause in the dense middle sentence carries operational value (source, stability, filter verification), and the final sentence states the constraint. It earns its length, though the middle sentence could be split for readability.

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 tool with 8 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the high-risk operational facts: scrape source, relative instability, filter verification, and the mutual-exclusivity constraint, and it previews return content (position, price, rating). It does not document rate limits, error behavior, or pagination beyond the schema's page parameter, so it stops just short of complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds cross-parameter meaning the schema lacks: 'category_id, access_level, and content_type=podcasts are mutually exclusive,' and it reassures the agent that the filters actually change results. That goes beyond the per-parameter 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 ('Get an Audible chart (audible.com/charts)') and adds concrete return-value detail (ranked list with real chart position, price, and rating). It also distinguishes the tool from the rest of the audible_* family by noting it has no equivalent on api.audible.com's public JSON API, which separates it from siblings like audible_search and audible_products.

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 signals when this tool is the right choice — chart data that has 'no equivalent on api.audible.com's public JSON API' — and warns that it is a 'different, less stable source class' than the rest of the family. It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or give a when-not-to-use condition, stopping 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.