list_interests

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation returning interests, but lacks details on auth, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or result ordering. The description is adequate for a simple list tool but could be more explicit.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the main purpose, and the second provides immediate context for usage.

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?

No output schema, but the description explains the purpose and usage context. However, it does not specify return format (e.g., array of strings), ordering, or limits. For a simple list tool, it is moderately complete but could be improved.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'query' parameter. The description adds context that results are used with the 'interests' filter but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond filtering. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 returns common listener interests, optionally filtered by name, and explicitly mentions their use with the 'interests' search filter. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_sponsors and list_categories.

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 usage context by stating the returned names are used with the 'interests' search filter, guiding the agent on when to call this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare alternatives among siblings.

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