audible_editorial_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is an HTML scrape of a marketing page rather than a JSON API, that output is normalized into shelves, and that a specific category is unsupported. This is substantive behavior context, though it doesn't mention rate limits or failure modes.

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 dense sentences, each earning its place: the core function, the source and follow-up pairing, and the known limitation. The key information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the return shape, the scraping source, and how to enrich results via adjacent endpoints. It does not enumerate valid slug values, but that is likely discoverable and the description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 schema already describes the only parameter as 'Editorial list slug' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, such as examples of valid slugs or expectations about unknown slugs, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Get an Audible curated editorial list' — a specific verb and resource — and specifies the return format as 'themed shelves (heading + ordered ASINs)'. It clearly distinguishes itself from the broader audible_* family by emphasizing that it targets editorial 'Popular Lists' pages rather than product or category endpoints.

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 text gives explicit routing: use the returned ASINswith GET /audible/products (batch) or GET /audible/product/{asin} for full detail, which tells the agent to use this tool for list-level data and product endpoints for enrichment. It also states a concrete when-not: 'Best of the Year' is not covered because its layout has no consistent structure to parse.

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