list_achievements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions none: no return format, no pagination behavior, no authentication requirements, no mention of what 'achievements' refers to, and no note about profile-scoped vs account-scoped behavior (though the profile_id parameter hints at this). A list operation with zero behavioral detail is a significant gap.

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?

Extremely brief at one short sentence, which is technically concise. However, this borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness—the description is too sparse to earn a 4. It does front-load the purpose clearly, but offers no additional value beyond the tool name.

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 list tool with 6 parameters including a nested filter object, 0 required params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the meaning of '実績' (achievements) in this domain, how filtering works with the nested object, or what the return structure looks like. The two-line description under-delivers for the tool's complexity.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with every parameter documented (limit, filter, offset, order_by, order_desc, profile_id each have Japanese descriptions). The description itself adds nothing beyond the schema, but per the baseline rule, with 100% coverage a 3 is appropriate. The schema does the heavy lifting here.

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 '実績一覧を取得' (get achievements list) clearly identifies the verb+resource action. However, it's very terse and doesn't distinguish this from other list_* siblings like list_hobbies, list_skills, or list_projects beyond the resource name in the tool name itself. The purpose is clear but minimal.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description doesn't mention any context for use, such as retrieving a profile's achievements list or how it relates to get_achievement (single item retrieval) or create/update/delete siblings. A single non-explanatory sentence provides no contextual direction.

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