list_conditions

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description does not contradict this, as 'List' aligns with read-only behavior. However, it adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations—no details on rate limits, authentication needs, or output format. With annotations covering safety, the description adds some value but is not rich in behavioral disclosure.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it is overly concise to the point of under-specification, slightly reducing its effectiveness.

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 the tool has annotations (readOnlyHint) and an output schema, the description does not need to cover return values. However, with 5 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no usage guidelines, the description is incomplete for effective tool selection and invocation. It meets a minimal baseline but has clear gaps in parameter and contextual guidance.

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%, so parameters like 'asset_class', 'data_type', 'id', 'sip', and 'params' are undocumented in the schema. The description does not explain these parameters or their semantics, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. This leaves the agent unclear on how to use the parameters effectively.

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 'List conditions used by Massive.com' states a verb ('List') and resource ('conditions'), but it is vague about what 'conditions' are (e.g., financial conditions, data conditions) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_aggs' or 'list_tickers', which also list resources. It avoids tautology by not restating the name directly, but lacks specificity.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and sibling tools include many list operations without clear differentiation. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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