list_indicators

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the data source ('data-driven by indicator_rules.json'). It does not confirm read-only semantics, describe result shape/ordering, or note the error behavior that the schema mentions for unknown modules.

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 efficient sentence with the key concept front-loaded. It is well-sized, though it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and all three optional parameters are fully documented in the schema. Still, for a listing tool with no annotations, the description is thin on scope and usage, leaving it merely adequate.

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 100%, so the schema already documents query, module, and company in detail (including the enum-like module values and filter semantics). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Browse the banking-indicator rule set.' An agent can infer this enumerates indicator rules, and the name reinforces it. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like get_indicator, extract_indicators, or audit_rule_gaps, so it stops short of a 5.

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 offers no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance. Useful context (previewing indicators before calling extract_indicators) exists only inside the schema's company parameter, not the description, so the description itself provides no selection guidance.

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