list_futures_forwards

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description adds genuine behavioral value beyond them: server-side pagination behavior, the ISO YYYY-MM-DD date format requirement, and the notable disclosure that 'the matrix response retains flexible upstream fields, not an invented flat schema.' This last point is genuinely useful and non-obvious behavioral context for handling the response. 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?

Two dense sentences, both front-loaded and purposeful. The first sentence gives the core purpose and key constraints (pagination, date format); the second adds the sibling routing hint and the response-shape caveat. No wasted words, every sentence 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?

Given an output schema exists (so return values are covered), annotations are complete, and the sibling pointer handles filter vocabulary, the description is quite complete. It covers pagination, date format, and the non-flat response shape. Minor gaps remain: no statement of what defaults return in practice or how filter params combine, but these are inferable from schema defaults and the sibling pointer.

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 effectively 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for end_dates (ISO YYYY-MM-DD format, beyond the schema's generic 'format: date') and for limit/offset (server-side pagination). However, it does not explain semantics for option_types, sort_field, sort_order, or the relationship between filters, which the sibling pointer only partially addresses. The description partially compensates for the coverage gap but not fully.

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+resource: 'Select futures/forwards with server-side pagination and ISO YYYY-MM-DD end dates.' This clearly identifies it as a list-style query tool for futures/forwards, distinguishable from singular siblings like get_future_forward_info and get_future_forward_details. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling it is not, but the plural resource and reference to get_future_forward_filter_options provide adequate differentiation.

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 an explicit routing pointer: 'Use get_future_forward_filter_options for current filter vocabulary,' telling the agent which sibling to consult for valid filter values before using this tool. It provides clear context for when the tool is appropriate (selecting futures/forwards with pagination) but lacks explicit when-not guidance versus the info/details siblings. Clear context with one alternative pointer, no exclusions.

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