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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the exact number of equities (45) and explaining the market's nature (OTC for unlisted/growth-stage companies), which informs the agent about the expected scope and content. It does not introduce any contradictions with annotations, and no additional side-effect disclosures are necessary for a read-only, parameterless tool.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource ('Get all 45 equities...') and adds clarifying context in the second clause. There is no redundancy or filler; every word contributes meaning.

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 has no parameters, a clear purpose, and helpful annotations, the description is nearly complete for a simple list tool. It does not specify the output structure (e.g., fields like symbol, price), which would be useful since no output schema exists, but the description's statement 'all 45 equities' sufficiently implies a list of securities. The slight gap in detailing return data prevents a perfect score.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description does not need to explain parameters because there are none. It implicitly conveys that the tool returns the full list of 45 equities without requiring any input, which is the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 'Get all 45 equities on Nigeria's NASD OTC Securities Exchange', identifying the specific verb (get), resource (equities), and market (NASD OTC). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_ngx_all_stocks by naming the exchange and further clarifying it is an over-the-counter market for unlisted and growth-stage companies, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool by specifying the NASD OTC Securities Exchange and its focus on unlisted and growth-stage companies. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is sufficient to differentiate it from NGX-focused tools. It lacks an explicit 'use this for...' or 'when not to use' statement, but the market scope is clearly defined.

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