filter_warrants

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add extra context. It adds two useful behavioral traits: pagination is server-side, and filter vocabulary values come from an upstream system rather than a fixed enum. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 short, purposeful paragraphs. The first sentence front-loads the core function and pagination; the second adds the critical downstream dependency. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 filter/list tool with full annotations, an output schema present, and simple scalar parameters, the description covers the key workflow: paginate, treat filter vocabularies as upstream-defined, and take an orderbookId before asking for details. Nothing essential for calling this tool correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that sub-type, direction, and issuer vocabulary is upstream-defined and that orderbookIds come from discovery results, which is valuable. However, it does not explain null semantics for filter arrays, allowed sort_field values, or behavior of limit/offset, leaving clear gaps for eight parameters.

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 and resource: 'Select warrants by upstream filters with server-side pagination.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling info/detail tools by instructing the agent to 'Select an orderbookId from results before requesting info or extended details,' so an agent can tell it apart from get_warrant_info or get_warrant_details.

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 gives a clear context for use: it is a filtering/discovery step, not a details endpoint, and it tells the agent to use an orderbookId from the results before proceeding to info or details requests. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the downstream workflow is clearly stated.

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