list_covered_warrants

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that only static data is returned (no market price), which is a key behavioral trait. It does not mention pagination or potential errors, but for a simple listing tool this is sufficient.

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, front-loaded with the core action and data fields, followed by a useful clarification about static data and the intended pre-filter usage. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

The tool is a simple listing operation with two parameters and no output schema. The description lists the returned fields, notes the lack of market price, and connects to the sibling analysis tool, providing enough context for an agent to select and invoke it. Minor omission: does not mention the default limit/sorting in the main text, but that is captured in the schema.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both underlyingSymbol and limit, including the sorting behavior for limit. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, but since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 lists covered warrants for a specific underlying stock at VNDIRECT, enumerates the returned fields (CW code, issuer, exercise price, conversion ratio, maturity date, days remaining), and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool analyze_covered_warrant by positioning it as a pre-filtering step.

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 says to use this for preliminary filtering before calling analyze_covered_warrant for detailed analysis, naming the alternative tool. This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool and how it fits in a workflow.

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