watchlist_add

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic action without disclosing behavior like idempotency, duplicate handling, or validation errors, despite having an idempotency_key parameter.

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 clear sentence with no redundant wording, making it efficient. However, it is also quite minimal, so it does not fully earn 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?

Given the tool's 5 parameters and existence of an output schema, the one-line description is inadequate. It doesn't explain required account and watchlist context, return value, or how it interacts with other watchlist tools.

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?

Input schema coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions 'symbol', leaving account, watchlist, agent, and idempotency_key unexplained. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory but the description adds minimal semantics.

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 the verb 'add' with the resource 'symbol to a persistent watchlist', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like watchlist_remove and watchlist_delete. It is specific and 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 implies when to use the tool (to add a symbol to a watchlist) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Given the large sibling set, explicit guidance would improve clarity.

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