Watchlist

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the return structure (groups[]{id, name, securities[]{...}}), which is genuinely useful since there is no output schema, but it doesn't disclose anything else such as pagination, limits, or open-world caching implications.

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, zero filler. The purpose verb+resource is front-loaded, and the return-shape sentence is dense with useful structural information. 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 read-only tool with zero required parameters, no tool-specific params, and annotations carrying the full safety profile, the description is complete. The return shape is spelled out explicitly, compensating for the absent output schema, and nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100% — the only parameter, _jq, is fully documented in the input schema itself, so the description need not add param-level detail. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a 3 is appropriate; the description contributes no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all watchlist groups and their securities'), and the second sentence pins down the exact return shape. Among siblings, it is unambiguously the read counterpart to create_watchlist_group, update_watchlist_group, and delete_watchlist_group, and distinct from sharelist_* tools.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than explicit: sibling names (create/update/delete_watchlist_group) make it obvious this is the listing tool for watchlist groups, but the description never states when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no explicit routing, though for a simple list tool the implication is fairly strong.

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