goodreads_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It openly covers credential-free/public data access, pagination, and the non-obvious behavior that page 1 of well-known lists may come from a faster live source while other pages fall back to the public list page. This is meaningful, non-obvious behavioral context.

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 content is compact and the valuable behavioral caveat appears in the final sentence, but the first sentence repeats essentially the same noun phrase as the second sentence ('Get a Goodreads Listopia list' vs 'Returns a Goodreads Listopia list'). This redundancy gives it a mid-tier conciseness score rather than a tighter 4 or 5.

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 two-parameter, credential-free read tool, the description adequately covers the resource type, input behavior, source behavior, and fallback path. It does not go deep into output shape or list discovery, but those are not necessary for basic 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with id and page already documented. The description's mention of 'by id' and 'paginated' somewhat mirrors the schema but adds little beyond it, such as how IDs are formatted or how to discover them.

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 identifies the action ('Get') and the specific resource ('Goodreads Listopia list, ranked book list'), and it notes retrieval is by id. This is sufficiently specific, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like goodreads_lists or goodreads_search.

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 explains what the tool does and mentions pagination, but it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, how to discover list IDs, or when another Goodreads tool would be more appropriate. No exclusions or alternative conditions are stated.

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