get_readlist

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

Annotations already mark this as readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Get' aligns with that, so there is no contradiction. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context, such as clarifying that only readlist metadata is returned and not the books inside. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is acceptable but not enriching.

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 a single, short sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, lacking any structural elements like parameter explanations or additional context. Still, for a simple get-by-ID tool, the length is appropriate.

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?

The tool has only one parameter, has an output schema (which presumably defines return values), and is annotated as read-only. The description is adequate for a minimal getter, but it does not clarify what 'details' includes or how this relates to sibling tools like get_readlist_books. Given the output schema exists, the description does not need to explain returns, but the ambiguity around 'details' leaves a gap.

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%, so the description needs to compensate for parameter meaning. It fails to explain that readlist_id is the identifier of the readlist to fetch. Although the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description does not reinforce or extend the schema, leaving the parameter semantics entirely to the structured definition.

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 uses the verb 'Get' with the resource 'readlist details', making it clear this tool fetches a single readlist's metadata. It does not explicitly mention filtering by readlist_id, but the schema implies it. The description does not actively distinguish from siblings like get_readlist_books, but the resource term 'readlist details' suggests metadata rather than books.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as list_readlists or get_readlist_books. There is no mention of prerequisites, like needing a readlist_id from a list operation. This is a complete absence of usage guidance.

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