Warrant List

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by listing the specific return fields and implying a filtered list behavior, though no side effects or additional behaviors are disclosed.

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 sentences: first states purpose, second lists return fields. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with essential information.

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 list tool with extensive schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, return fields, and is consistent with annotations. No output schema is needed as the return fields are described.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond mentioning the underlying symbol. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get'), the resource ('filtered warrant list'), and the context ('for an underlying symbol'). It lists the return fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like warrant_issuers (which lists issuers) and warrant_quote (which gets a quote for a specific warrant).

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 specifies the context (for an underlying symbol), but does not explicitly provide when-to-use vs. alternatives or exclusions. However, the clear purpose combined with sibling tool names implies appropriate usage.

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