List collections

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

Annotations already declare a safe, non-open-world read, so the description doesn't need to argue safety. It instead adds real behavioral detail: pieces counts duplicates, sums are in cents, and templateId points back to list_categories. Ordering, pagination, or whether zero-count collections appear are not addressed.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and what each row contains, then the usage trigger, then the sibling pointer. The heavy parenthetical nesting ('pieces counts duplicates', 'cents') makes it dense but every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema and no params, the description carries the return-shape burden and does it well by naming the fields an agent will see. Missing only secondary details like result ordering or inclusion of empty collections, which an agent might need before calling.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline applies. The description uses the space instead to explain output fields rather than inventing parameter guidance.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('The household's collections') and immediately enumerates what each entry carries: piece counts, want-list counts, value and cost in cents, and templateId. It also draws the boundary against sibling list_items, which holds the individual things.

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?

Gives concrete triggers ('how's the coin collection?', getting a collectionId) and names the sibling to use for the underlying things. It stops short of stating exclusions, such as when to prefer inventory_report or list_categories outright, but the routing intent is clear.

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