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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds non-obvious behavior: omitting teamId expands the result across all teams the key can reach, which is not evident from the schema alone. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then packs the key scoping behavior efficiently. Every part of the sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 read-only list tool with no required parameters and a simple schema, the description covers the main scoping behavior and cross-team semantics. It does not describe the return shape or whether limit applies per team, but the annotations carry the safety profile and the schema constrains limit. This is adequate for correct 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 description adds useful meaning for teamId by explaining the omission behavior, complementing the schema's teamId description. However, limit is not semantically explained in the description, and the schema only provides numeric constraints. With 50% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates.

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 tool lists watchlists and paper portfolios, with an explicit scope: one team or all teams the key can reach. This distinguishes it from mutation siblings like collections.add_symbol and collections.remove_symbol, though it does not explicitly name an alternative list tool.

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 provides conditional guidance for the teamId parameter, explaining that omitting it reaches every team the key can access. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as collections.get, notes.list, or teams.list, and offers no exclusions.

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