available_tickers

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'list', implying a read operation, but provides no details on output format, pagination, or data scope. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.

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 but underspecified. A single sentence offers no structure, such as parameter descriptions or example usage, which would aid understanding.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a nested parameter, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain return behavior, acceptable inputs, or relationship to sibling tools, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It does not explain 'dataset' values (daily, monthly) or the format parameter, requiring the agent to infer from the schema alone.

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?

Description states 'List available tickers for a dataset' which clearly communicates the tool's function. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'news_by_ticker' or 'screener_sentiment', but does not explicitly differentiate from 'available_markets' or 'available_regions'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions, providing no help for an agent to decide between this and sibling tools.

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