List Library indicators

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does so well by noting 'server-side sorting (newest first by default)' and the nature of structured browsing. It does not mention pagination behavior or output format, but the schema provides defaults and limits, so the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the core action. Every clause earns its place: the browsing behavior, the default ordering, the structured use case with examples, and the pointer to the alternative tool. No filler or repetition.

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 tool's moderate complexity (6 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the key context: what the tool does, how to use it, and when to prefer an alternative. It doesn't describe the return shape, which would be useful for an agent, but the title and sibling context partially compensate. The missing pagination/return details keep it from a 5.

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 67%, so the description does not need to fully compensate, but it also doesn't add much detail beyond the schema. It clarifies that sorting is server-side and that 'newest first' is the default, which adds semantic value, but individual parameters like family and direction are left to the schema's enums. Overall, it adds some meaning but not enough to raise the score above baseline.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Browse the indicator catalog with filters and server-side sorting.' It uses a specific verb ('Browse'), names the resource ('indicator catalog'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like library_search by explicitly contrasting structured browsing with keyword discovery.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use for structured browsing' with concrete examples ('latest indicators', 'everything in the volatility family') and explicitly names the alternative for keyword discovery: 'for keyword discovery prefer library_search.' This clearly separates usage from siblings.

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