quote_list_authors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the ordering rule (descending by quote count), but says nothing about whether all authors are returned, how limit interacts with the ranking, or what the response looks like.

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?

One short sentence with the sort criterion front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it is so brief that it leaves structural questions (return format, truncation) unaddressed.

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?

A simple read-only list tool whose annotations and fully documented single parameter carry most of the weight, and with no output schema nothing about return values must be explained. Still, the description does not clarify whether 'sorted by number of quotes' means descending or how limit truncates the ranked list, which matters for correct interpretation of results.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already explains limit and its default of 20. The description adds only an implicit reading (limit yields the top-N most-quoted authors) and does not state truncation behavior beyond that.

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 ('List') and resource ('quote authors') plus the sort criterion, which is more than a restatement of the name. It is implicitly distinguishable from quote_random / quote_search / quote_by_author, but the description never names those siblings to make the boundary explicit.

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: browse authors ranked by quote volume. There is no 'when to use this instead of quote_search or quote_by_author' guidance and no stated preconditions, so the agent must infer the routing from sibling names.

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