Watchlist

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

Annotations already provide read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints. Description adds the return structure (groups with id, name, securities) but no additional behavioral traits like pagination or authentication needs.

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?

Single sentence that efficiently states purpose and return format. No wasted words.

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 parameters, comprehensive annotations, and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns. It lists all fields in the response, making it complete for a simple list operation.

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?

No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for zero parameters is 4. Description does not need to add parameter info, but it does document the return structure.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Get all watchlist groups and their securities' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_watchlist_group, delete_watchlist_group, and update_watchlist_group by being the read-only list operation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools (mutations for individual groups) implies this is for listing all groups, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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