list_carousels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return payload shape (id, title, caption, slide_count, timestamps), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about read-only nature, auth needs, or pagination behavior — though 'List' plus the pagination params imply a safe read.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the routing hint last. Every sentence 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned summary fields and points to the sibling for deeper data, covering what an agent needs to call and interpret it. Minor gaps: no pagination guidance beyond the schema and no mention that results may be truncated.

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 100% for both limit and offset, so the schema already documents them fully (defaults, bounds). The description adds nothing about parameter behavior; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('List carousels') and immediately differentiates scope from the sibling get_carousel ('Use get_carousel for full slide data'). The only shortfall is that it doesn't state scope/filtering constraints, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 (get_carousel) and the condition that selects it (need full slide data), which is real routing guidance. It stops short of stating when-not to use list_carousels or how it relates to other content-listing siblings, so no exclusions are covered.

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