watchlist_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds ordering guarantees ('exact order') and the concurrency fingerprint, which are useful beyond the annotations, but it never explains what the fingerprint is for or how it pairs with expected_layout_id, leaving the optimistic-concurrency story half-told.

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 dense sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler; the fingerprint clause earns its place as the only non-obvious return detail. It is slightly over-packed, compressing ordering, scope and fingerprint into one clause chain.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return shape, and it does so only at a high level ('symbols and sections in exact order', 'fingerprint') without saying how sections are structured or how the fingerprint is consumed. For a read tool with three parameters and no output schema, this is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 100% and each parameter already carries a precise description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about the optional target_id or expected_layout_id, which are the genuinely ambiguous parameters on a read-only tool.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Read every stored symbol and section in exact order from one custom watchlist ID', plus the extra return element (a concurrency fingerprint). The phrase 'one custom watchlist ID' implicitly separates it from watchlist_list and watchlist_get_active, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'custom watchlist ID' hints that watchlist_list supplies the identifier and that this is the ID-addressed counterpart to watchlist_get_active. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, and nothing explains why a read operation accepts target_id ('Required for changes') and expected_layout_id ('stops the operation before writing').

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