goodreads_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is credential-free, returns paginated data, and is for public Goodreads data. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or what happens with invalid IDs.

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 very concise: two short sentences that front-load the core action and essential details. Every sentence adds value with no extraneous 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?

Given the low complexity, simple parameters, and absence of output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and mechanics. It could mention what the returned list contains (e.g., book titles, ranks) but remains sufficient for its simplicity. Sibling tools list provides context for differentiation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds only marginal value by stating 'by id' and 'paginated', which reinforces the schema. No additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the id and page parameters.

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 clearly states 'Get a Goodreads Listopia list' with explicit verb and resource, and further clarifies it's a paginated ranked book list accessed by ID. It distinctly separates from sibling tools like goodreads_search and goodreads_book.

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 mentions 'Credential-free public Goodreads data' implying no authentication, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives like goodreads_search or goodreads_book. Usage is implied but not clearly delineated.

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