List indicators

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'read live from its registry,' a minor behavioral detail about the dynamic data source, but does not go beyond that. Given the comprehensive annotations, this is adequate.

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?

Three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: stating what the tool does, describing the output format, and giving usage timing. No redundancy or filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 listing tool with no parameters, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description fully covers purpose, output fields, and usage guidance. An agent has all necessary information to call it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100% and there is nothing to explain. The description correctly omits parameter details. The baseline of 4 for a no-parameter tool is appropriate, as the description adds no unnecessary filler.

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 catalogs every indicator the Sentimentracker backend can compute, read live from its registry, and specifies the exact return fields (key, displayName, signalKind, description). This unambiguous verb+resource pair distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve specific indicator data.

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 explicitly instructs to call this once at session start so the agent knows which key to ask about, providing clear timing and purpose. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the 'once at session start' directive effectively frames it as a discovery step before using other tools.

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