list_emerging_interests

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read-only listing (no mutation implied) and specifies what is shown: endorsement count and the user's endorsement status. It does not mention ordering or pagination, but for a simple list tool this is adequate. No contradictions with annotations (none provided).

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 two sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded ('List emerging interest themes'), followed by a brief clarifying clause and the specific output details. Every sentence 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?

For a simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description tells the agent exactly what to expect: a list of themes with endorsement count and the user's endorsement status. It could mention ordering or pagination, but those are minor for such a tool. The description is complete enough for correct 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 only parameter is token, and schema description coverage is 100% — the schema already fully documents it. The description adds no additional parameter context, which is acceptable since the token is self-explanatory and well-described in the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool lists 'emerging interest themes' — a specific resource and action. It differentiates from siblings like list_interests by the 'emerging' qualifier and explains the context ('on their way to becoming active'), so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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 when to use it: to see proposed interests before they become active, versus list_interests for active ones. It doesn't explicitly say 'use list_interests for active themes', but the contrast is clear from the wording. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are named, but the context is strong enough for correct selection.

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