Watchlist

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one behavioral detail—that the result includes instruments—but does not cover return format, errors, or permission needs, making it minimally additive.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to defining the tool's scope and return composition.

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?

For a simple read tool with annotations covering safety, the description gives the essential scope (single watchlist by id, includes instruments). However, with no output schema, it omits any description of the returned watchlist structure or the market parameter's role, leaving gaps an agent might need.

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?

With 50% schema description coverage, the market parameter is fully documented in the schema, while id only has minLength. The description's 'by id' minimally reinforces the id parameter but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so it neither compensates for nor exceeds the schema 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 states the resource (a watchlist) and scope (one, by id, with instruments), which implies retrieval and distinguishes it from get_watchlists. However, it does not name any sibling tool explicitly and lacks an action verb, so it falls short of the highest clarity bar.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus get_watchlists or other watchlist operations. The agent must infer that 'one by id' means a single retrieval, with no exclusions or alternatives stated.

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