goodreads_lists

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It transparently states the output structure (id, name, category), the curation process (hand-picked and verified live), and the limitation (non-exhaustive). It also explains the absence of an upstream index. It does not mention ordering or result count, but the key behavioral traits are well-covered.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first phrase. Each subsequent sentence adds genuine value: return fields, the rationale for curation, a chaining instruction to the detail endpoint, and the category enum. It is compact (four sentences) with no filler or redundancy.

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 parameterless catalog tool with no output schema, this description is fully complete. It tells the agent exactly what is returned (id, name, category), enumerates the possible categories, and explains the practical limitation and the fallback to the singular list endpoint. There are no input parameters to document, and the behavioral caveats are sufficient for an agent to use the 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?

There are zero parameters, and the descriptor trivially covers 100% of the schema. The rubric assigns a baseline of 4 for 0-parameter tools. The category enum mentioned in the description refers to returned data fields, not input parameters, so it does not confuse the input interface. No further parameter documentation is needed.

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 'List curated Goodreads Listopia lists,' which clearly specifies the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from the sibling goodreads_list tool by explicitly directing the user to pass a returned id to GET /goodreads/list/{id} for the list's contents, and it explains that Goodreads has no directory or search endpoint, making this tool the unique way to discover curated lists.

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 when-to-use guidance: use this because Goodreads has no directory or search endpoint for user-created lists. It also states when not to use it (once you have an id, use goodreads/list/{id}) and sets expectations about the curated, non-exhaustive nature. This is explicit and actionable.

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