reference_get_conditions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only implies a read-only list operation but provides no details on pagination, sorting limits, filtering effects, or the format of the returned conditions. The agent cannot anticipate side effects or response characteristics.

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 single sentence is short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It contains no structure to aid scanning, such as a summary, examples, or parameter notes. The brevity comes at the cost of essential information, making it not appropriately sized.

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 annotations, no output schema, and five undocumented parameters, the description is critically incomplete. It does not explain what 'conditions' refers to in Polygon's domain, when they are relevant, or how the output relates to other market data tools. An agent cannot confidently infer the tool's full purpose or invocation context.

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 information about the five parameters. While parameter names like 'limit' and 'sort' are generic, the meaning of 'data_type', 'asset_class', and 'condition_id' is left entirely to inference. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('conditions that Polygon uses'), clearly identifying the tool's primary function. It is not a tautology and distinguishes itself from other reference tools by naming a unique resource type.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where a different reference tool would be more appropriate.

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