wishlist_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does well by disclosing the asynchronous Soulseek arrival, the ~20s per-entry latency, and the 'only results not seen before' filtering behavior. It does not mention side effects or whether the operation is read-only, but the search-oriented wording and clear timing provide strong transparency for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

Two sentences, no waste. The core action is front-loaded, and the critical latency caveat follows immediately. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It covers what happens, the filtering rule, and the time cost. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it successfully is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema has nothing left to document. The description correctly focuses on behavior rather than parameters. Baseline of 4 applies because with no parameters the description need not add parameter detail.

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 specific verb ('run'), a concrete resource ('all wishlist searches'), and a distinct scope ('report only results not seen before'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like search/search_results (single searches) and wishlist_add/list/remove (list management). An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without inspecting schemas.

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 phrase 'Run all wishlist searches now' conveys when to use this tool: when a batch execution of all saved wishlist searches is needed. It also distinguishes from single-search siblings by the word 'all'. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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