fortune_ranking_lists

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context: the listing covers all public rankings, includes both Fortune 500 regional/global variants and award/culture rankings, and explicitly notes the Fortune China 500 parsing quirk. It does not describe output format, but for a zero-parameter listing tool this is a minor gap.

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 with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, the scope is explained with a useful example, and the parsing caveat earns its place as relevant behavioral information.

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 simple zero-parameter endpoint with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what is returned, what categories are included, and highlights a noteworthy parsing edge case. It could explicitly state the exact return shape, but the 'accepted by the other fortune/ranking endpoints' phrasing already signals that the output values are the valid ranking identifiers.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description focuses on the tool's output rather than parameters, which is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List Fortune ranking lists') and precisely scopes what the tool returns: every public ranking accepted by the other fortune/ranking endpoints, including specific franchise variants. This clearly distinguishes it from related siblings like fortune_ranking, fortune_ranking_filters, and fortune_ranking_years.

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 conveys when to use this tool: as the enumeration/source of valid ranking values for the other fortune/ranking endpoints. It does not explicitly state 'use this before fortune_ranking' or list exclusions, but the phrase 'accepted by the other fortune/ranking endpoints' gives strong contextual guidance.

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