goodreads_lists

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does a strong job by revealing a fallback of behavior: served from a live popular-lists source when available, falling back to a curated catalog otherwise. It also discloses that the endpoint does not search all user-created lists. This goes beyond a simple catalog description and sets honest expectations about the source and completeness.

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?

Each of the four sentences earns its place: the purpose, the return shape and source limitation, the fallback behavior, and the onward route to the list detail tool. All information is high-signal with no filler. The most important positioning is 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete. It covers what is returned (id, name, category), the category enum values, the source and fallback, and provides the follow-up endpoint for the actual list contents. An agent has everything it needs to invoke and consume this tool correctly.

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 input schema is empty, so there are zero parameters to document. Per the baseline for a zero-parameter tool, this receives a 4. The description additionally lists the category enum, which clarifies output values rather than inputs, but it adds useful semantic context to the catalog's returned data.

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 specific verb and resource: 'List curated Goodreads Listopia lists.' It also explicitly states what is returned (a catalog with id, name, category), which separates this catalog tool from the sibling goodreads_list that fetches a single list's contents. There is no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 guidance: Goodreads has no directory/search endpoint, so this tool provides a catalog, and then explicitly instructs to pass the returned id to the goodreads_list endpoint for the ranked book contents. This routes an agent to the correct sibling tool and explains why this catalog exists.

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