watchlist

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and not destructive, and the description adds significant behavioral context: volume is reported in shares rather than lots, and the `volumeShares` field name prevents accidental comparison with daily-bar volume. It also discloses the dual-mode behavior of listing versus reading contents, going well beyond the 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 compact and every sentence earns its place: it states the resource, gives the two call modes, mentions the direct alternative, and adds a units warning that prevents a real comparison pitfall. The information is front-loaded and well organized.

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 the small parameter surface, no required parameters, and read-only annotations, the description covers everything needed for correct invocation. It explains the output domain (watchlists and their symbols), the volume units caveat, and the relationship to `scan`; there are no significant missing behavioral or return-value details.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description clarifies that omitting `id` lists watchlists and passing it reads contents, but this is largely already present in the schema's id property description. The `limit` parameter is left entirely to the schema, so the description adds no meaningful new parameter semantics.

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 identifies the resource (the user's own Stockbit watchlists and the symbols in one) and states the action: with no arguments it lists watchlists, and with `id` it reads a list's contents. This is specific enough to distinguish the tool from siblings like `portfolio`, `position`, and `scan`.

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?

It gives explicit call patterns: no arguments to list, `id` to read contents. It also names the direct alternative, `scan`, and explains when that is relevant by saying it can sweep the watchlist universe with universe=watchlist, which helps an agent choose between the two tools.

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