nexus_get_mod_endorsers

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: it clarifies the underlying API version, the rate-limit advantage, the two-step uid resolution with caching, and the exact pagination/return shape. This gives an agent a solid mental model of what happens when the tool is invoked.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every subsequent sentence adds useful operational detail: API backing, rate-limit behavior, resolution strategy, and return/pagination format. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description sufficiently covers purpose, usage context, behavioral quirks, and pagination. An agent can confidently invoke this tool correctly without needing additional clarification.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that mod_id is resolved to a uid first, which clarifies the relationship between the parameter and the underlying GraphQL API, and by explicitly instructing pagination via after_cursor. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List users who endorsed a mod via v2 GraphQL.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from related siblings like nexus_get_endorsements or nexus_endorse_mod by focusing on listing endorsing users rather than endorsement state or action.

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?

It provides clear context for when this tool is preferable by noting it uses the v2 GraphQL API and does NOT consume the v1 REST rate-limit quota. It also explains the two-step cached resolution. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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