get_wantlist

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results are paginated ('one page'), which tells the agent not to expect the full list and implies a paging loop — information absent from the annotations.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the scoping statement front-loaded and the routing advice immediately after. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Routing is well covered, but with no output schema and three undocumented parameters, the definition leaves the agent guessing at the return shape and at page/per_page/username semantics. Adequate for a simple read tool, but with clear gaps.

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% across three parameters (page, per_page, username), yet the description only vaguely gestures at paging with 'one page' and says nothing about per_page defaults or what username does (another user's wantlist vs. the authenticated one). It fails 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?

States the resource (the wantlist) and its scope precisely: 'One page of the wantlist.' It also implicitly contrasts with the whole-wantlist path, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like query_collection without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative workflow ('sync_collection and then query the `wants` view with query_collection') and the condition that selects it ('For whole-wantlist questions'). This is a textbook when-to-use-this-vs-that statement.

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