Get List Detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral load. 'Get' implies a read-only fetch and 'including all venue items' hints at a broader payload, but there is no disclosure of pagination, auth requirements, or whether the response can be large.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by the ID source. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it already summarizes contents as full detail plus venue items. For a single-parameter read tool this is nearly complete, missing only pagination/size expectations.

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 100% so the schema already documents list_id as a Foursquare list ID. The description adds provenance value by telling the agent where valid IDs come from (get_user_lists), which is meaning beyond the schema.

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 (Get) and resource (full detail for a specific list) plus scope (all venue items). It implicitly separates itself from get_user_lists by noting IDs originate there, though it does not name the alternative as a routing option.

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 clause 'List IDs come from get_user_lists' gives a useful prerequisite and points at the upstream tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance or statement of what full detail is preferred over.

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