list_wanted_cutoff

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description's GET notation and "Query parameter" labels are consistent with that, but they add no deeper behavioral context such as pagination behavior, filtering semantics, or what the results represent.

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 short and cleanly organized around an endpoint and argument list, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely informative. "Read Cutoff." is a thin summary, and the repeated "Query parameter." lines add structure without adding semantic value.

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?

Even with annotations and an output schema available, the description omits the core concept of "cutoff" and the use case for the tool. This makes it difficult for an agent to choose this endpoint correctly, especially with many similar list_wanted_* and list_* siblings present.

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%, so the description needed to explain the parameters, but it only repeats their names and states "Query parameter." There is no explanation of page, page_size, sort_key, sort_direction, or monitored, so the agent cannot understand how to meaningfully use them.

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?

"Read Cutoff." provides a verb and a resource name, but the resource itself is undefined—it never explains that this lists wanted items whose quality has not reached the configured cutoff. The endpoint and tool name hint at the meaning, but the description alone is too terse and does not clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like list_wanted_missing.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of the wanted/cutoff distinction, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The description only gives the endpoint and parameter list, leaving the selection context entirely implicit.

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