Add to Sharelist

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, covering the mutation nature. The description adds that it returns the upstream API response, which is useful, but it does not detail error handling or duplicate symbol behavior. It contributes modestly beyond annotations.

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 concise sentences with the action front-loaded. Includes a concrete example for symbols and notes the return type. No redundant or vague phrasing; every word earns its place.

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 simple mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the essential call information: target list, symbols, and return format. It does not detail error cases, but that is acceptable given the low complexity and absence of an output schema.

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 coverage is 100% for all three parameters, each with clear descriptions. The tool description only repeats the symbols example already in the schema, adding no new semantic value. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full burden.

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 action ('Add securities to a community sharelist by id') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like sharelist_create (create new list) and sharelist_remove (remove securities) by focusing on adding securities to an existing list.

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 usage (need an existing sharelist id) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives. Given the large sibling set, some routing guidance would help, but the action is straightforward enough that the context is reasonably inferred.

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