mc_listInterests

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the operation is read-only, mention pagination behavior beyond the schema parameters, or indicate any limits on results or required authentication. The description is too minimal to provide adequate transparency.

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 concise phrase with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. While it could benefit from more structure (e.g., including parameter roles), the brevity avoids unnecessary content and is appropriate for a simple list tool.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no output schema) and the rich set of sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return format (e.g., what fields are returned per interest), does not clarify that interests are scoped to both audience and category, and lacks any behavioral or usage context that would help an agent fully understand the tool's operation.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the phrase 'in category', which weakly hints at the relationship to interestCategoryId but does not provide meaningful additional semantics. It does not compensate beyond what the schema already provides.

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 resource ('interests') with a scoping phrase ('in category'). It clearly indicates what the tool does and helps distinguish from siblings like mc_listInterestCategories (which lists categories) and mc_getInterest (which retrieves a single interest). However, it could be more precise by mentioning the required audience and category parameters.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mc_getInterest or mc_listInterestCategories. The description does not include any contextual clues about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, making it difficult for an agent to choose the correct tool among many similar list and get tools.

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