list_sectors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists all sectors and that the output includes sector IDs, but lacks details on response format, pagination, or authentication. For a simple read-only list, this is minimally adequate but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences, each providing distinct information: what the tool does and how the output can be used. No redundancy and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters or output schema, so the description covers the core functionality. However, it does not explicitly describe the structure of the returned sector list beyond implying sector IDs exist. This is sufficient for a basic list tool but leaves some ambiguity.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter-specific information, but with no parameters, the baseline is 4.

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 action ('List all sectors') with a specific resource ('sectors'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_countries and list_markets. The verb 'List' is explicit and unambiguous.

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 a downstream use case ('Use sector IDs to filter instruments') but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when to use this over sibling tools. It offers indirect usage guidance but lacks exclusions or direct comparisons.

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