mdl_custom_lists_friends_voted

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

The annotations already declare the safe, read-only, idempotent, open-world profile, so the safety burden is carried. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: it requires host-configured MyDramaList authentication. It says nothing about pagination behavior, scoping to the requesting user's friends, or result shape.

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?

It is brief and front-loaded, with no filler sentences, which is good. But it is brief because it omits substance rather than because it is economical; the auth note is the only payload. The stray double spaces are a minor formatting blemish.

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 read-only, no-output-schema, paginated browse endpoint, the description should at minimum say what the call returns (custom lists voted on by the user's friends) and how paging works. It supplies the auth requirement but leaves the core 'what do I get back' question unanswered, so an agent cannot confidently distinguish it from mdl_custom_lists_i_voted.

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% and the description does not mention page or limit at all. Although these are conventional pagination parameters with documented defaults and bounds in the schema, the description contributes zero meaning about their semantics (e.g., max 100 per page, page numbering) to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 essentially restates the tool name: 'Custom Lists: friends voted.' maps one-to-one onto mdl_custom_lists_friends_voted. There is no verb describing what actually happens (list? fetch? browse?) and no differentiation from the near-identical sibling mdl_custom_lists_i_voted.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. The obvious alternative (mdl_custom_lists_i_voted) is never named, nor is there any statement of the context in which 'friends voted' lists are the right choice. The only condition mentioned is authentication, which is a prerequisite rather than usage guidance.

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