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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains every signal code, notes the home-market scope, covers the conditional ticker case, routes GTINs elsewhere, discloses the system-error condition, and clarifies that halted status is advisory and links to the market's halts page. The annotations already cover safety and idempotency, and nothing contradicts them.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose and then efficiently enumerates the signal codes and edge cases. It is dense but appropriately sized for the number of status codes, with only the signal-page URL sentence being marginally expendable.

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 enough context to call it correctly: it explains the identifier expectations, the meaning of each possible signal, the conditional exchange requirement, the GTIN exclusion, and the halted advisory behavior.

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 coverage is 100% and the identifier schema already documents ISIN, ticker with exchange, LEI, and CMR key formats. The description adds useful semantics by warning that a bare ticker may name multiple issuers and by excluding GTINs, directing them to gtinfetch.ai.

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 identifies the resource as the ACM-68000 signal for a listed security in its home market and enumerates the possible signal codes. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_record and resolve_issuer by its focus on a signal status, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 gives input-specific guidance such as adding an exchange when a bare ticker names multiple issuers and asking gtinfetch.ai for GTINs. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus sibling tools like resolve_issuer or get_record, leaving selection largely implied.

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