list_watchlist

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose the default value of active_only, whether jurisdiction_code narrows results, pagination behavior, or what the response contains. The behavioral profile is largely left to the agent to assume.

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 six-word sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and contains zero filler. The brevity is appropriate for a simple two-parameter list tool, though the space saved could have been reinvested in parameter semantics.

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?

Key context is missing: the meaning of jurisdiction_code, the default behavior of active_only, and the expected return shape. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should carry more of this burden itself, and it does not. The operation's simplicity prevents a score of 1, but an agent would still be guessing at essential call details.

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 the description must compensate for both parameters. 'All or active' maps usefully to active_only, but jurisdiction_code is never mentioned — its role, format, and whether it filters or is required are unexplained. The description only partially covers the parameter surface.

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 pairs a specific verb ('List') with a specific resource ('monitored measures') and adds a scope qualifier ('all or active'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_discovery_candidates and get_due_reviews, which target different resources. It falls short of 5 only because it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings.

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 implies the usage context: when an agent needs to view monitored watchlist measures, this is the tool. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use rules, no exclusions, and no pointers to alternatives such as list_discovery_candidates or get_due_reviews, leaving agent routing to inference.

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