list_top_notebooks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose ranking (by votes) and visibility scope (public only). However, it omits key behavior such as how many results are returned, pagination, filtering effects, or auth requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded fragment with no wasted words; it conveys ranking scope and follow-up refs efficiently, though it is arguably too terse to be fully self-contained.

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 simple list tool with an output schema, return format need not be explained, but the absence of any explanation for the sole optional filter parameter is a real gap. With no annotations and no parameter documentation anywhere, the definition is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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 only parameter, 'competition', has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned in the description at all. The description therefore adds no meaning about the parameter and leaves its purpose entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: top public notebooks ranked by votes, with refs intended for get_notebook. The role is clear versus get_notebook (fetch one) and list_competitions, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with 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 phrase 'with refs for get_notebook' implies a follow-up workflow—list here, then fetch details with get_notebook—but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-condition guidance.

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