get_brokerage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds semantic context about what the brokerage value means, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as return value formatting, error conditions, or network handling beyond what annotations/schema 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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second clarifies the meaning of the returned value. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 read-only query with one required parameter, the combination of description, schema, and annotations provides sufficient context. The description explains the domain concept, making the tool's output interpretable even without an output schema.

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%, so both parameters (network and witnessAddress) are already described in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, but it does explain the domain concept of brokerage, which indirectly supports parameter understanding. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 uses a specific verb+resource structure: "Query the brokerage ratio (dividend percentage) of a Super Representative." This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling mutation tool update_brokerage and other query 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?

The description implies usage by explaining what the tool does, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. For example, there is no guidance like 'Use this to check an SR's brokerage before voting' or 'Do not use this for total rewards.'

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