list_reading_bookmarks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with them. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond those annotations; 'on a material' merely restates the schema's material_id scope, with no mention of ordering, pagination, or relationship to annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. For a one-parameter read-only list tool, this level of brevity is appropriate and every word earns its place.

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?

Given the read-only annotation and the presence of an output schema, the basic invocation details are covered. Still, the description does not clarify whether it returns all bookmarks for the material or how it should be chosen over the add/delete bookmark siblings, leaving some inference to the 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 coverage is 100%, with material_id already described as 'Reading material ID'. The description's 'on a material' adds no new parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 clear verb ('Read') and resource ('bookmarks on a material'), so an agent can identify this as a retrieval operation scoped to a single reading material. It is distinguishable from the add/delete bookmark siblings by the read verb, though it does not explicitly name them or emphasize the 'list' behavior.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_reading_bookmark, delete_reading_bookmark, or list_reading_annotations. The read-only wording implies retrieval, but no condition, prerequisite, or exclusion is provided.

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