get_future_forward_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'detail fields are intentionally flexible', which is somewhat useful context but does not disclose any additional behavioral nuances, such as return format variations or potential missing fields. Given the annotations cover safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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 very short with minimal waste, but it is too under-specified. It could be more informative without being verbose. The phrase 'intentionally flexible' adds some value but overall it is not effective.

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?

There is an output schema, but the description is too vague to convey what extended details might include or how they differ from base info. An agent cannot predict what fields will be returned or when to use it. For a complex domain with many siblings, this is insufficient.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, and the parameter is well-documented (order-book ID from discovery, not instrumentId). The description does not add anything about the parameter beyond the schema, so baseline 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 says 'extended contract details beyond info' which is vague. It doesn't specify what kind of contract (future or forward) or what extended details means. The name mentions 'future_forward' but the description is ambiguous and could apply to any instrument. There is no distinction from sibling tools like get_future_forward_info.

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 does not specify when to use this tool versus get_future_forward_info or other detail tools. It only hints at 'extended' but doesn't explain what scenario requires it. An agent would not know if this is for futures vs forwards, or what extra fields to expect.

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