wishlist_add

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully discloses that wishlist entries are re-run on a schedule and only new results are reported, which is key behavioral context an agent would not infer from the tool name or schema alone.

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 two sentences, with the action front-loaded and the behavioral consequence stated immediately after. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no verbose or redundant phrasing.

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?

The description explains the tool's core behavior well, but it omits guidance on the optional parameters and does not clarify when to prefer this over one-time search or other wishlist operations. While the output schema exists and covers return values, the missing parameter semantics leaves the description incomplete for an agent needing to construct a fully informed call.

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 for the three parameters. It indirectly clarifies that 'query' is the search term for the standing search, but it gives no explanation of 'formats' or 'label_filter', leaving their semantics mostly to inference from the parameter names.

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 verb ('Add') and the resource ('a standing search to the wishlist'), which is specific and distinct from the sibling tools like wishlist_list, wishlist_remove, and wishlist_check. The term 'standing search' also signals this is not a one-time search, further differentiating it from search-related siblings.

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 makes the usage context clear: this is for ongoing monitoring where you want to be alerted about new results over time. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the recurring-monitoring framing provides adequate guidance for most agent decisions.

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