Warrant List

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool's safety and idempotency are known. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., pagination, rate limits, or output format), so it meets the baseline but adds nothing 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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information. Every word contributes to the purpose statement.

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 tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It confirms the main function but omits details like the structure of the returned list or how it relates to sibling tools like `warrant_quote`. The rich schema and annotations compensate slightly, but the description could be more helpful.

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 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains each of the 8 parameters. The description does not add any new meaning or usage tips beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 'Get filtered warrant list for an underlying symbol' clearly states the verb (Get), resource (filtered warrant list), and context (underlying symbol), fully distinguishing it from siblings like `warrant_quote` or `warrant_issuers`.

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 indicates this tool is for retrieving a filtered list of warrants for a specific symbol, which clearly implies the use case. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for different needs.

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