list_conditions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states it 'lists' conditions but reveals nothing about permissions needed, rate limits, pagination behavior, response format, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this is critically inadequate.

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 maximally concise at just 5 words: 'List conditions used by Polygon.io.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. While under-specified, what's present is structurally efficient.

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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and 56 sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'conditions' are, how to use the parameters, what the tool returns, or when to choose it over alternatives. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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?

With 5 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides zero information about what 'asset_class', 'data_type', 'id', 'params', or 'sip' mean in this context. The schema only provides titles without descriptions, and the description doesn't mention parameters at all. This leaves all parameters completely undocumented.

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 'List conditions used by Polygon.io' states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('conditions'), but it's vague about what 'conditions' are in this financial data context. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_tickers' or 'list_exchanges' that also list resources. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about the domain.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 56 sibling tools on the server, there's no indication of when 'conditions' are relevant compared to other list operations like 'list_tickers' or 'list_exchanges'. The agent receives no usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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