get_warrant_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered structured data carries the burden. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: 'not guaranteed real-time' is a data-freshness behavior that materially affects invocation expectations. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 a single concise sentence with zero filler: purpose and caveat each earn their place and are front-loaded. No redundant phrases or needless elaboration are present, making it a model of concise yet informative writing.

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?

Given the low complexity (one required parameter, output schema available, no nested objects), the description plus structured fields is quite complete. The purpose, identity-latest-data scope, freshness caveat, and param semantics are all covered. It falls slightly short only in not explicitly routing to siblings for real-time use cases, which was already penalized in usage_guidelines.

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% and the parameter is well documented with the crucial 'Avanza order-book ID from discovery; not the separate instrumentId' note. The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies per the rubric since the structured data already carries the meaning.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource with concrete scope: 'Get warrant identity and latest available market data'. It conveys what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the very similar sibling get_warrant_details. The non-real-time caveat further sharpens the meaning, earning a 4.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like get_warrant_details or get_orderbook. The 'not guaranteed real-time' caveat implies a limitation for live-data use cases, but no alternative is named and no exclusionary context is provided. This leaves the agent to infer usage entirely on its own.

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