User 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 covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the returned data fields and noting that it returns the full set of stocks the user follows, going beyond the structured annotations.

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 core description is front-loaded in the first sentence, with a clear second sentence on when to use it. The 'AFTER using this tool' paragraph adds navigational value for the agent, though it is slightly beyond what is strictly necessary for invocation, keeping the score from being a 5.

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?

This is a simple zero-parameter read tool with complete annotations and a description that states both the returned fields and the intended usage context. Nothing needed for correct invocation or interpretation is missing, and the follow-up suggestions help the agent plan downstream actions.

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 tool has zero parameters)Skip parameters; the schema coverage is 100% and there is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation burden exists.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get the user's stock watchlist — all stocks they are following.' It also lists the returned fields, making the tool's function unmistakable and distinct from mutation siblings like add_to_watchlist and remove_from_watchlist.

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 gives a clear trigger: 'Use this to see what stocks the user is tracking before making suggestions.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the workflow context is strong enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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