bookshelf_list_wanted_missing

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

The description provides no behavioral insight beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not mention pagination behavior, default parameter effects, or the meaning of the query parameters. Since annotations already indicate read-only, the description adds no extra context about the tool's behavior.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, but it includes a redundant listing of query parameters that duplicates the input schema. The structure is flat and fails to provide any meaningful organization or additional information, making it only slightly better than a minimal statement.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'wanted missing' refers to, how parameters like 'monitored' affect results, or how this tool differs from similar list/get tools. The 6-parameter tool with zero explanation leaves significant gaps in understanding for an AI agent.

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 0%, and the description only lists parameter names without explaining their purpose or semantics. For example, 'monitored' and 'includeAuthor' are mentioned but not defined. The description adds almost no value over the input schema, leaving the agent with ambiguous parameter meanings.

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 'List wanted missing' simply restates the tool name (bookshelf_list_wanted_missing) without adding any clarifying detail about what 'wanted missing' means or how it differs from the sibling 'bookshelf_list_wanted_cutoff'. It is a tautology rather than a meaningful explanation.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'bookshelf_list_wanted_cutoff' or 'bookshelf_get_wanted_missing', nor does it mention any prerequisites or specific scenarios.

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