get_list

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

Despite lacking annotations, the description fully discloses the lookup mechanism: each field is resolved independently within its own container, thus preventing misalignment. It also specifies selector syntax including container self-targeting and '@attr' for attribute extraction, going far beyond the bare function name.

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?

Despite its length, every sentence contributes: the opening defines scope, the middle explains the mapping syntax, and the final note points to a companion tool. The structure is logical and front-loads the core purpose, making it an efficient, well-organized description.

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 tool with only two required parameters, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, usage context, and even a companion tool tip. With an existing output schema, the description need not explain return values, so it is fully complete within its context.

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 schema only defines container_selector as a string and fields as a string-to-string object, with 0% description coverage. The description explains that fields maps output names to relative CSS selectors, provides concrete examples, and documents the '' and '@attr' conventions, filling the entire coverage gap.

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 'Extract one record per element matching container_selector' and defines it as 'the div/card equivalent of get_table,' giving a specific verb, resource, and scope while distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_table and get_page_content.

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 explicitly frames this as the non-table alternative to get_table and advises calling find_repeating_elements first when unsure of selectors. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and names a companion tool, leaving no ambiguity about alternatives.

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