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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral details beyond these: sorting by holding market value (largest first), pagination behavior (page, page_size defaults and max 100), and the exact list of per-ETF fields returned. This enriches the annotation baseline without contradiction.

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 well-structured with a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by an Args block and a Returns block. Every line adds useful information—parameter defaults, max page_size, and per-ETF fields—with no fluff or 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?

The description covers inputs, outputs, sorting, and pagination completely. There is no output schema, so the detailed return fields are essential and provided. Given the tool's moderate complexity and strong annotations, no critical information is missing.

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 carries full responsibility. It explains each parameter: ticker with examples, page with default, page_size with default and max. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions and adds practical usage guidance.

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 'Returns the list of ETFs that hold a specific stock, sorted by holding market value (largest first).' This uses a specific verb ('Returns'), identifies the resource (ETFs holding a specific stock), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_etf_holdings (which likely lists holdings of a given ETF) and get_etf_top_stocks.

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 a clear use case: finding which ETFs hold a given stock, with sorting and pagination details. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_etf_holdings or get_etf_screener, nor does it mention exclusions. The context is clear but not explicitly differentiated.

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