unified_watchlists

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates a read operation (get) but does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. The description is minimal but not misleading.

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 extremely concise: one line for purpose and one line for the parameter. It is front-loaded with the key action, and every word adds value. No unnecessary information.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the core purpose and parameter adequately. However, it lacks differentiation from similar sibling tools, which would improve completeness for disambiguation.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for the 'brokers' parameter, but the description compensates by explaining 'Optional list of broker names to include (e.g., ["robinhood", "schwab"])'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type definition, though it does not enumerate valid broker names.

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 'Gets all watchlists aggregated across supported brokers', specifying the verb 'gets' and resource 'watchlists', with the qualifier 'aggregated across supported brokers' distinguishing it from per-broker watchlist tools. This provides a precise purpose.

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 implies usage for aggregated watchlists but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like 'all_watchlists' or 'unified_watchlist_by_name'. No 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer context from tool names alone.

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