get_users_by_id_lists

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the special 'me' value for the authenticated user and the detailed pagination semantics (low default limit, clamping to endpoint maximum rather than rejecting).

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 definition is compact: a one-sentence purpose, the endpoint signature, and a tight args list. The key purpose and pagination nuances are presented cleanly without filler. It is appropriately sized for a 4-parameter read endpoint.

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 moderately complex paginated endpoint with an output schema present (so return values need no explanation), the description covers purpose, the 'me' identifier, and pagination behavior adequately. The main gap is lack of explicit differentiation from sibling list endpoints, but the inline endpoint path mitigates this.

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 must compensate — and it does, addressing all four parameters: id with the 'me' special value, page semantics, limit with default/clamping behavior, and extended as response enrichment. The parameter notes are terse but meaningful, especially the pagination details that the empty schema titles cannot convey.

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 states a clear verb and resource: "Get a user's personal lists." The qualifier 'personal' helps distinguish this from the sibling get_users_by_id_lists_collaborations, though no sibling is named explicitly. The inline REST endpoint GET /users/{id}/lists reinforces the resource and scope.

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 choose this tool over alternatives like get_users_by_id_lists_collaborations or get_users_by_id_lists_by_list_id. The 'personal lists' phrasing implies scope but does not state exclusions or selection criteria. Pagination guidance is present but addresses parameter usage, not tool selection.

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