get_shortlist

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only and idempotent. The description adds important behavioral details: re-scoring with refresh, returning score deltas, and scoping to API key. No contradictions with 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?

Three well-structured sentences: purpose, key behavioral detail, and summary. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

Given the small number of parameters and presence of annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral and output context. It could mention error cases or limits, but is sufficiently complete for a retrieval tool with clear schema.

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?

Both parameters have clear descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description does not add new parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score is appropriate.

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 tool retrieves a saved shortlist and explains its key behavior (refresh). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'save_to_shortlist' by emphasizing it's for maintaining campaigns, but does not explicitly contrast with 'list_saved_sites'.

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 a strong use case: maintaining a siting campaign across days/weeks and understanding why a site scores changed. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use this tool.

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