watchlist_get_active

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context — the API's active watchlist can diverge from what the UI renders — but it says nothing about the return shape (entries, symbols, IDs) or why a read-only tool carries target_id/expected_layout_id guard parameters.

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, front-loaded with what the tool reads and followed by the one caveat that matters. Nothing wasteful.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description does not indicate what the response contains, so the agent cannot know whether it returns watchlist names, symbol entries, or IDs. The unexplained write-guard parameters on a readOnly tool add further 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema itself, making a 3 the baseline. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not explain why a read operation takes an 'expected_layout_id' that 'stops the operation before writing'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the API-designated active watchlist') and sharply distinguishes it from the rendered sidebar state, which is the key ambiguity among the watchlist_* siblings. It does not name watchlist_list/watchlist_get as alternatives, so the differentiation is implicit.

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?

'Use exact IDs for mutations' implies you should read this before performing watchlist mutations, which is real guidance. However, there is no explicit 'use X instead when...' routing against watchlist_list or watchlist_get, leaving the agent to infer which watchlist tool to pick.

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