get_interested_readers

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 states the tool lists readers, implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose whether it requires authentication, whether it returns paginated results, what the response format is, or any side effects. For a read tool with no annotations, this is a notable gap.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. It earns its place with no filler, though it could add a bit more context without becoming bloated.

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?

The tool has one required parameter with zero schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is too sparse to fully guide an agent: it doesn't clarify what 'slug' means, what the response looks like, or how this relates to sibling tools like get_user_reader_emails. Given the low complexity (1 param), a bit more detail would make it complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'slug' parameter. The description doesn't explain what 'slug' refers to (e.g., book slug, course slug, or interest slug), leaving the agent to guess. This is a significant gap given the single parameter is required.

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 lists readers who registered interest and opted to share their email. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('readers who registered interest'), and the qualifier about email opt-in distinguishes it from a generic reader list. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but the purpose is clear enough to differentiate from tools like get_user_reader_emails or get_book_reader_emails.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving interested readers who have opted in, which gives some context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like get_user_reader_emails or get_book_reader_emails, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is implied but not fully articulated.

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