Get curated lists

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the lists are 'curated / featured,' which provides modest behavioral context. However, it does not disclose anything else (e.g., whether the returned data is static or dynamic). With annotations present, the description adds some value but not a lot, garnering a 3.

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 sentence of only 6 words, which is extremely concise and front-loaded. However, it could benefit from a bit more context (e.g., what these lists contain), but it earns a 4 for being succinct without being underspecified.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is minimal but sufficient to convey the basic purpose. It does not elaborate on the return format or potential use cases, which would be helpful for an AI agent. A score of 3 reflects adequate but not comprehensive completeness.

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 input schema is empty with 100% coverage. According to the rubric, for 0 parameters the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, but it correctly implies no input is needed. A score of 4 is justified.

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 purpose: retrieving eToro's curated/featured instrument lists. The verb 'Get' and resource 'curated/featured instrument lists' are specific. It implicitly differentiates from other get tools like get_instruments or get_watchlists, but does not explicitly distinguish them, so a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 siblings. The many sibling tools that also retrieve lists (e.g., get_instruments, get_watchlists) would benefit from usage context, which is entirely absent. A score of 2 reflects this lack of guidance.

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