Get Shortlist

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses important behavior: refresh=true re-scores against the current baseline, returns saved_score/current_score/score_delta_since_saved, and the explanation lets the agent interpret whether site changes or population changes caused a score delta. It also notes API-key scoping. No contradiction 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?

The description is dense and well-structured: it opens with the action, then explains the key behavior and rationale, then closes with the API-key scoping. Every sentence contributes useful decision-making information without redundancy.

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 rich annotations, full parameter schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the important behavioral context an agent needs: refresh semantics, score delta interpretation, and scoping. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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%, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it explains the refresh=true default, the re-scoring behavior, the returned delta fields, and contrasts refresh=false as returning saved snapshots. This adds real value for an agent deciding how to set the parameter.

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 emphasizes the re-scoring behavior, which distinguishes it from simple list/get operations. It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling tool, but 'Retrieve a saved shortlist (Phase 5)' is specific enough for an agent to understand the core resource and 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?

The description gives clear usage context: this is 'the reliable way to maintain a siting campaign across days/weeks.' It explicitly frames when the tool is valuable, although it does not state when not to use it or name alternatives such as list_saved_sites or save_to_shortlist.

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