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

The description implies a read-only operation through words like 'Discover' and 'Access', which is appropriate for this type of API. However, with no annotations provided, the description does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the fact that no side effects occur. It provides minimal information beyond the informational nature of the call.

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 concise, composed of two sentences that front-load the main purpose and then provide detail on the returned data. There is no fluff or redundancy, and every clause 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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with 100% schema coverage, the description covers the core purpose and key return fields (market value, share numbers, weight percentages). However, since there is no output schema, the description could have been more explicit about the response structure or any limitations, but the tool's simplicity keeps it close to complete.

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 input schema already provides a clear description for the 'symbol' parameter ('Fund symbol'), giving 100% coverage. The tool description adds context by mentioning 'specific stocks' and 'assets within ETFs', which helps clarify that the symbol refers to an ETF/fund. This is a slight enhancement, but not substantial beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool discovers which ETFs hold specific stocks and provides market value, share numbers, and weight percentages for assets within ETFs. This clearly identifies the resource and the type of information returned, but the phrasing 'which ETFs hold specific stocks' could be misleading because the input is a fund symbol, not a stock symbol. It distinguishes itself by referencing 'FMP ETF Asset Exposure API', though without naming 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getFundHoldings or getFundSectorWeighting. The description simply states what the tool does without providing context on use cases, exclusions, or alternative tool recommendations.

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