List Tickers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the returned field list but does not disclose behavior such as pagination, default limit, or ordering. The qualifier 'available' is vague, so it adds modest value beyond 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 description is two sentences: the first states purpose and output fields, the second gives an alternative. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description, combined with the schema and annotations, sufficiently covers what the tool does and its read-only nature. It lacks an explicit note about pagination or result limits, but the schema documents the default limit. For a simple read-only list tool, this is adequate, though a bit more context on return shape would elevate it further.

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?

All three parameters (limit, listed, exchange) have descriptions in the input schema, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics or examples, so it meets the baseline but provides no extra value.

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 action 'List available stock tickers' and enumerates the returned fields (symbol, name, exchange, type, listed status). It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from search_tickers, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly directs users to 'Use search_tickers for a targeted lookup', providing a clear alternative. This implies the current tool is for broad listing, which is valuable guidance for selection.

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