list_update_candidates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a relevant behavior: the tool does not make editorial recommendations, which clarifies output intent. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention pagination, limits, or other side-effect-related behavior.

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?

The description is a single compact sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the core listing purpose and appends the important caveat about editorial recommendations, so every part 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?

The tool is relatively simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description communicates the main output categories, but it does not explain the meaning of older_than_days, the output shape, or any filtering/behavioral nuances, leaving an agent with incomplete information for a fully confident invocation.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the sole parameter older_than_days at all. The parameter name and default value 90 hint at a staleness threshold, but the description adds no semantic guidance about how the parameter affects the results, which is a significant gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and enumerates three concrete resource categories: mechanically stale publications, post-publication source corrections, and image-verification gaps. It also includes a clarifying exclusion ('does not make editorial recommendations') that distinguishes this from a recommendation-oriented tool despite the 'candidates' naming.

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 description implies the tool is appropriate when the agent needs to surface stale publications, source corrections, or image-verification gaps. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as list_incomplete_follow_through, nor does it provide exclusions beyond 'does not make editorial recommendations.'

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