validate_broker_connection

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by emphasizing that the tool fails loudly if credentials are missing or invalid, and never silently proceeds, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 consists of two concise sentences, front-loading the purpose and output, followed by a key behavioral note. No wasted words.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the core information: action, input (implicitly via enum), output type, and error behavior. It is missing details about the specific environment variables required for each broker, but overall is sufficient for an agent to understand and use the tool.

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 has one parameter (broker) with enum values (tradovate, alpaca, oanda). Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain what each broker option means or what environment variables are required. The enum values are self-explanatory, but additional context would help the agent know which credentials are needed.

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 it tests broker connectivity using credentials from environment variables, with specific error messages. It distinguishes from sibling tools like connect_broker by focusing on testing rather than establishing a connection.

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 implies usage for testing connectivity before actual connection, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like connect_broker or get_connected_brokers. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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