get_lists_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context such as pagination behavior, response size, rate limits, or how the 'extended' parameter affects the result. It is purely a parameter listing with no disclosure of what the tool does at runtime.

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 argument list is organized with clear line breaks and the endpoint is front-loaded. However, the repeated 'Query parameter.' entries are low-signal filler that inflate the description without helping the agent, and the watchnow explanation is verbose but valuable.

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?

With 15 parametersebb, no schema descriptions, and a rich output schema, the description leaves critical gaps: it does not clarify what the tool returns, what values 'extended' accepts, or the accepted format for filter parameters (e.g., comma-separated lists, date format). An agent cannot reliably construct a correct request from this description alone.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. While watchnow has detailed allowed values and ignore_* parameters have short meaningful explanations, nine parameters (genres, subgenres, years, ratings, start_date, end_date, runtimes, countries, certifications) are described only as 'Query parameter.' – a tautology that adds no semantic value. The description only meaningfully covers about a third of the parameters.

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 says only 'Get list.' and 'GET /lists/{id}', which restates the tool name without explaining what the list represents or what the response contains. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like get_lists_by_id_comments_by_sort or get_lists_by_id_items_movie, and the presence of item-filtering parameters (genres, years, etc.) makes it ambiguous whether this returns list metadata or list items.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description contains only parameter names and placeholder text like 'Query parameter.' with no examples, prerequisites, or indication of which scenarios call for this endpoint.

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