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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that by disclosing the unlock_shareflo sequencing dependency. It does not describe failure behavior when the prerequisite is missing, nor pagination or return format.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the scope statement front-loaded and the prerequisite immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries some burden for return values; it does characterize the result as all share instruments/share classes, which is adequate for a zero-parameter read. The only gap is the absence of failure/pagination behavior, which is minor for this tool's simplicity.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameters for the description to explain, and it correctly uses its words on scope and prerequisites instead.

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?

States a specific verb (returns) and resource (all share instruments / share classes) scoped to 'this company', with a clarifying parenthetical. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_holdings or create_instrument, but the resource is distinctive enough that an agent can identify it.

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?

Provides a concrete prerequisite: 'Requires unlock_shareflo to have been called first', naming a sibling tool and the condition for calling it. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or what happens if the prerequisite is unmet (error vs empty result).

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