list_emerging_interests

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by specifying what the response includes (endorsement count and the user's own endorsement status), which is behavioral information beyond the annotations. This is useful context for the agent.

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 concise sentences with the core action front-loaded. Every word adds value: the first sentence defines the resource, the second describes the return fields. No fluff or redundancy.

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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains the return value (themes with endorsement counts and user endorsement status). The agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret 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?

The schema describes the single optional token parameter at 100% coverage, including when it is needed (optional if COMMONS_TOKEN is set). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_interests (active interests) and browse_interests (likely a browse operation). The phrase 'proposed interests gathering endorsements on their way to becoming active' precisely defines the resource and scope, leaving no ambiguity about what is being listed.

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 context (to view proposed interests that are not yet active) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list_interests or browse_interests. It lacks an explicit 'when-not' or exclusion clause, so an agent must infer the distinction from the description's wording.

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