audible_charts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It openly states that this is an HTML scrape and 'less stable' than other family members, which is a meaningful reliability warning. It also confirms that filters were individually verified to change results. It does not mention rate limits, authentication, or possible failure modes, but covers the most critical behavioral trait: the fragility of the source.

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 information-dense but not bloated. The first sentence establishes purpose, the second covers source reliability and filter verification, and the third presents the mutual exclusivity constraint. Each sentence contributes substantive value; minor redundancy exists ('different, less stable source class' and 'less stable' are repeated in thought), but overall it is well-structured and 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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description provides enough return-type context ('ranked list with real chart position, price, and rating') and notes the scrape's instability. It does not detail the exact response envelope or edge cases, but with 100% parameter coverage and the caveats provided, an agent can call this tool correctly for the intended purpose.

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 descriptions already cover all 8 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a crucial semantic constraint: 'category_id, access_level, and content_type=podcasts are mutually exclusive,' which is not present in the schema and directly prevents invalid parameter combinations. This extra guidance justifies a score above baseline.

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 direct action and resource: 'Get an Audible chart (audible.com/charts)' and specifies the unique value ('real chart position, price, and rating that has no equivalent on api.audible.com's public JSON API'). It further distinguishes this tool from siblings by labeling it an HTML scrape from a different source class, making its purpose clear and differentiated.

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 context for when to use this tool: when authentic chart data is needed that the public API lacks. It also warns that this is a 'different, less stable source class' implying caution, and states that its filters were individually verified. However, it does not name specific sibling alternatives or explicit 'when not to use' conditions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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