Discogs: get wantlist

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

The readOnlyHint annotation declares this as a read operation, and the description's 'List' aligns. It adds the 'authenticated user' context, indicating an auth requirement, but does not disclose pagination behavior, response shape, or error handling. Given the annotation covers safety, the description adds limited value.

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 entire description is one short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler or redundant detail. It is optimally concise.

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 simple list tool with two pagination parameters and a read-only annotation, the description is mostly adequate: it states the resource and authentication scope. However, it omits any mention of pagination mechanics or that an empty list is possible, but given the output schema is absent and the tool's simplicity, this is a minor 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?

The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), and the description does not explain page or per_page or their role in pagination. Although the parameter names and constraints are self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the missing schema coverage, leaving parameter semantics to inference.

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 a specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource 'releases on the authenticated user's wantlist', clearly distinguishing this from wantlist add/remove tools. It is unambiguous and directly matches the tool's name.

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 implies the tool is used to view the authenticated user's wantlist, but does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings like discogs_add_to_wantlist or discogs_remove_from_wantlist, nor does it mention alternatives for collection items. This leaves usage context implicit rather than explicit.

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