get_critic_lists

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does convey that this is a read-only listing action and discloses the year-0 default-index behavior. However, it leaves 'default index' undefined and does not mention edge cases, ordering, or pagination 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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with no filler. The one-sentence purpose and parameter note are both necessary and sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It falls short on explaining the 'default index' sentinel and on guiding the agent toward this tool versus the sibling get_critic_list, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the only parameter: 'year' is the filter and 0 returns the default index. This adds genuine meaning beyond the bare schema field.

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 a specific action ('List') and resource ('publication and critic year-end lists'), with an optional year filter. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_critic_list, but the plural 'lists' vs singular sibling gives reasonable differentiation.

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 only guidance is how to use the year parameter, not when to choose this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of get_critic_list or any other sibling, and no exclusionary conditions are provided.

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