Sharelist Detail

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint as true, so the description's burden is reduced. It adds value by detailing the return structure (id, name, constituents, quote data, subscription status), which is beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 sentence followed by a list of returned fields. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no extraneous information. Every part serves a purpose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, rich annotations, and an output schema), the description is complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return structure adequately.

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 single parameter 'id' is described in the input schema as 'Sharelist ID', and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 explicitly states 'Get community sharelist detail by id', which clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (sharelist detail). It also lists the returned fields, making the purpose unambiguous. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list or create sharelists.

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 usage when needing detail for a specific sharelist by ID, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. Given that sibling tools like sharelist_list and sharelist_create exist, the description could be improved by noting alternatives.

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