broker-safety

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying what information is returned ('verification data, scam reports, regulatory status, and trustworthiness indicators') and the tool's purpose in assessing credibility. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like data freshness or coverage scope.

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 appropriately sized with two focused sentences: one explaining the tool's function and return data, and another providing usage guidelines. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary repetition.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides good context about what information is returned and when to use it. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning response format or data sources, but it adequately covers the tool's purpose and usage.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents the single parameter. The description mentions the tool can use 'company name or website URL' but doesn't add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('Retrieves information to determine whether a broker is legitimate or a scam') and resources ('broker's company name or website URL'). It distinguishes itself by focusing on scam detection and credibility assessment, which is unambiguous even without sibling tools.

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 states when to use this tool: 'when users ask about broker reliability, safety, legitimacy, or want to verify if a specific broker is trustworthy before investing or trading.' This provides clear context and use cases, with no alternatives needed since there are no sibling tools.

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