Mods of an author

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, open-world call. The description adds real behavioral value on top: sort order ('newest update first'), the implicit-auth default, and the concrete fields returned (downloads, endorsements, version, last update). The 'in ONE call' phrasing is slightly in tension with a default limit of 25, but it usefully signals no follow-up fetching is required.

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?

Three compact sentences that front-load the core action and the default behavior, with no filler. Slightly denser than necessary given it packs scope, sorting, default resolution and return fields into one run-on sentence.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and for a zero-required-parameter query tool the scope, ordering and default account resolution are all covered. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description only reinforces the no-argument path already implied by the uploader default and does not explain precedence between user_id and uploader, the limit cap, or the game_domain_name/all_games interaction.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List every mod published by a Nexus account') and scopes it to an author, which separates it from generic siblings like nexus_list_mods or nexus_find_mods. It does not, however, explicitly name a sibling it is not, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

Gives concrete usage context: the no-argument case resolves to the authenticated account ('my mods') and the tool is framed around the 'how are my mods doing?' scenario. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives for when another listing tool should be used instead.

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