list_my_guides

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the load. 'List' implies a non-destructive read and the sentence discloses the fields returned, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether guides are private/public — gaps that matter for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with zero filler. Every clause (signed-in user, guide titles, audience, place counts) adds 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?

For a simple parameterless read with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (titles, audience, place counts) and whose data it is. Only minor details like ordering or result size are absent, which is a small gap.

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 zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is no parameter semantics to explain and the description correctly implies no input is needed beyond the signed-in identity.

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 ('List') and resource ('signed-in user's Beli guides') and even names the returned fields (titles, audience, place counts). It distinguishes itself from get_guide/get_my_guide_items by scoping to the signed-in user's guide collection, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 phrase 'signed-in user's' implies when this applies (own guides, no ID needed), which implicitly separates it from get_guide or get_my_guide_items. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative.

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