List bookmarks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the authentication requirement and the required OAuth scope (bookmark.read), which is useful. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, default max_results, or response format—gaps that are not filled by 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 extremely terse—just one line—with no wasted words. It front-loads the HTTP method and path. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification rather than efficient conciseness, but it still earns a 4 for lack of fluff.

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 read-only list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate: it states the purpose and auth requirement. However, it lacks details on pagination usage, default max_results behavior, and potential error cases, leaving an agent to guess on some operational aspects.

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 only 50%: pagination_token has a description, but max_results does not. The description adds no parameter information whatsoever, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation. An agent gets no help understanding max_results or how to use pagination_token beyond the schema's single description.

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 clearly states the verb (GET), resource (bookmarks), and scope (for the authenticated user), which precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like x_organic_bookmark and x_organic_unbookmark that perform actions on bookmarks. It is unambiguous and specific.

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 versus alternatives, nor any conditions or exclusions. It is implied that one would use it to list bookmarks, but no context about when not to use it or how it relates to other list tools is given.

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