Get list items

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 that results are paginated/sortable/filterable, but says nothing about return shape, whether cursor pagination invalidates offsets, or how access to private/shared lists is gated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause (resource, filtering, sorting, pagination) carries 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?

With 10 parameters, a five-way anyOf for list identification, and no output schema, the description should say more about what an item record contains and how pagination terminates. It is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps for a tool of this 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?

Schema coverage is 70%, so the schema does most of the work, and the description's "filtering, sorting and pagination" merely paraphrases parameter names. It adds no meaning about the five mutually exclusive list identifiers or the append_to_response cost/behavior.

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 ("Get the movies and shows in a list") plus the capabilities it supports, which is enough to separate it from siblings like get_list (metadata), get_list_membership, and add/remove_list_items. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent infers this is the read path for list contents. There is no statement of when to choose this over get_list or get_list_membership, and no note on prerequisites such as needing a share_token for unlisted lists.

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