Find Awesome List Section

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 effectively describes the tool's behavior: the selection process (4 criteria), response format (metadata included), and handling of ambiguous queries (returns multiple sections). It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, but provides substantial operational context.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, usage requirement, selection process, response format, and handling of ambiguous queries. While comprehensive, some sentences could be more concise (e.g., the selection process could be bulleted more efficiently). Overall, it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides substantial context: purpose, usage rules, selection algorithm, response format, and relationship to sibling tool. It doesn't explicitly describe the exact structure of returned metadata or error cases, but covers most essential aspects for a search/discovery tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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's purpose: 'Discovers sections/categories across awesome lists matching a search query and returns matching sections from awesome lists.' It specifies the verb ('discovers'), resource ('sections/categories across awesome lists'), and distinguishes it from its sibling 'get_awesome_items' by explaining this tool is for discovering sections before retrieving items.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'You MUST call this function before 'get_awesome_items' to discover available sections UNLESS the user explicitly provides a githubRepo or listId.' It clearly states when to use this tool versus its sibling and includes conditions for when it's not needed.

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