Get list membership

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 the useful scope fact that only static (non-watchlist) lists are checked, but says nothing about authentication requirements, the behavior when a media item matches multiple lists, or how seasons/episodes are resolved.

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 zero filler. It is efficient, though it is arguably terse to the point of omitting needed qualifiers about the ID parameters and shared lists.

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 six parameters, no output schema, and a tool that returns a set of matching lists, the description never says what comes back (list names? IDs? count?) nor how the four alternative ID fields interact with mediatype. For a reverse-lookup with no output schema, that is a significant 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?

Schema description coverage is 83%, so the schema already documents imdb/tmdb/tvdb/trakt and include_shared. The description adds only a restatement of the mediatype enum values and does not explain that different media types allow different ID types or what include_shared expands to.

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 gives a specific verb ('Find which ... contain') and a specific resource ('the user's static lists'), scoped to four media types. An agent can tell this is a membership/reverse-lookup rather than a listing tool, though it never names a sibling to contrast with.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of get_list, get_list_items, or get_user_lists. The adjective 'static' implicitly excludes the watchlist, but how to pick between this and the other list tools, or when include_shared matters, is left entirely to inference.

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