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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the cross-checking behavior (issuer UID, ISIN, contract deployment) and the safety scope (reference/admission evidence only, no trade authorization), which is meaningful context. It stops short of stating authentication needs, idempotency, or what the resolution returns on failure.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a scoping disclaimer, with no filler. The dense domain jargon (FIGI, MIC, UID, ISIN) is efficient but slightly raises parsing cost.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the resolution logic and safety scope adequately. It does not describe the returned master-data shape, which leaves a modest gap given the absence of an output 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description mentions the underlying identifiers (FIGI, MIC) but adds no syntax, format, or default behavior beyond what the schema already provides for 'symbol' and 'verifyOnchain'.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve a Robinhood Stock Token to Insight committed master data,' and details the resolution keys (share-class FIGI, ISO 10383 MIC). It is highly specific, but it does not name the close sibling get_robinhood_rwa_context, so an agent must infer the boundary between the two.

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?

It provides a clear exclusion ('never counts toward price quorum or authorizes a trade') that tells the agent this is reference-only, not a trading gate. However, it never states when to prefer this over assess_rwa_evidence or get_robinhood_rwa_context, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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