list_desks

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds real value: it discloses data sources ('reads the local desk journal and live mids'), states that no authentication key is needed, and gives the return shape {count, desks[]}. It stops short of noting staleness, limits, or what happens if the journal is empty, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

It is front-loaded with the action and the card contents, then the routing guidance, then the return shape — a sensible order with no filler sentences. The field enumeration is dense but each item earns its place by telling the agent what to expect back.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the full burden and does so: it describes the return object, the fields per item, the data sources, and the key-free operation. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Instead it spends its words on output semantics, which is the right use of space for a no-arg tool.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List every trading desk') and enumerates the exact payload of each card (id, primary coin, mid, 1-day return, latest call side, thesis age, next catalyst, track record). That level of detail distinguishes it cleanly from list_markets and get_desk_brief.

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 an explicit workflow ('Use first to pick a desk, then get_desk_brief for its full call') and an explicit exclusion ('for raw market listings use list_markets instead'). Both the sequencing and the alternative are stated rather than inferred.

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