mdl_custom_lists_get_user_lists

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the title-level restatement—no mention of pagination behavior, whether it returns only public lists, or whose visibility scope applies.

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 short, but only because it is under-specified—a tautological single phrase that adds no information. Brevity here is a deficit, not efficiency.

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 list-fetching tool with 3 params, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and numerous confusingly similar siblings, the description should at minimum clarify whose lists, visibility, and pagination. None of that is present, making the definition inadequate 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 description coverage is 0% and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all. The three parameters (user_id required, page, limit) are undocumented in both the schema and description, and no format, semantics, or defaults are explained in prose.

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 'Custom Lists: get user lists' essentially restates the tool name (mdl_custom_lists_get_user_lists) without adding distinguishing detail. It confirms the resource is user-created custom lists, but gives no scope about whose lists or what content is returned, leaving it indistinguishable from siblings like mdl_custom_lists_i_voted or mdl_custom_lists_friends_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, no alternatives named, no prerequisites. With many sibling list tools (get_detail, get_votes, friends_voted, i_voted, popular, trending), the agent gets no help choosing this one.

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