index_list

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says what the tool returns, not whether the data is live or static, what fields are included, or how invalid symbols are handled. It adds no context beyond the core function.

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, short fragment, which is efficient but not a complete sentence. It omits necessary context and reads more like a title than a functional description, though it is not redundant.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is not complete enough for an agent to understand the full behavior. It does not specify the return structure, potential errors, or whether the output is a simple list of index names or includes additional metadata.

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 input schema has one parameter, 'symbol', but the description does not explain it at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add meaning about the expected format, type, or examples, leaving the agent to guess what a valid 'symbol' looks like.

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 'Indices that a stock belongs to' clearly identifies the resource (indices) and scope (for a given stock), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like 'all_indices' or 'live_index'. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'get', so it reads more like a definition than an action statement.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or other tools like 'all_indices' that might be confused with it. The description simply states the output concept without contextualizing when to invoke it.

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