Get Watchlist

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It adds that results are limited to currently-listed vehicles and include days_on_market, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a get/list operation, the risk is low, so this is adequate but not rich.

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?

The description is two short sentences with the factual behavior front-loaded and a strategic usage note following. There is no redundant wording or restatement of the tool name.

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 one-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient, but it leaves the meaning of 'best-first' undefined and does not explain the limit parameter or how this tool relates to sibling watchlist/search tools. The strategic note adds context but does not fill those gaps.

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 one parameter, limit, with no description and 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention limit at all. The agent must infer from the parameter name and default value that it caps the number of results, so the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 tool returns currently-listed vehicles ranked best-first, with days-on-market information. This identifies the resource and behavior, but it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like search_listings or get_listing_history.

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 second paragraph implies the output is useful for spotting negotiating positions ('seller has had no luck and knows it'), but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_listing_history or analyze_sale_triggers. The usage context is implied rather than direct.

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