tickers_list

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

The annotations already signal readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to restate those. The phrase 'optionally truncated to limit' adds some behavioral context about how the limit parameter affects output. However, it does not disclose any further behaviors such as ordering, pagination, or how 'available' is determined.

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 a single short sentence where every word earns its place. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Return available tickers') and adds the optional truncation behavior without any filler or redundancy.

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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It tells the agent what the tool returns and the one way to constrain the result. It could be more complete by stating the output format, but the simplicity of the operation and the tool name reduce the need for elaborate explanation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining the limit parameter. The phrase 'optionally truncated to limit' clarifies that limit is an optional cap on the return set. This is useful but minimal; it does not specify behavior for null, zero, negative, or very large limit values.

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's action and resource: 'Return available tickers.' This is specific enough to communicate the core purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool tickers_search, relying on the reader to infer that 'available' implies a full list rather than a search.

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 implies the tool should be used when one wants to retrieve available tickers, optionally with a limit. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of tickers_search or other sibling tools, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. Usage guidance is therefore only implied, not directly articulated.

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