list_equities

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It adds some transparency by naming the official brvm.org source and declaring the tool as 'research-only', which hints at a read-only, non-operational context. However, it does not disclose potential rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or response behavior beyond the output schema.

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 sentence of 15 words, leading with the core action and resource. Every clause earns its place: source, research-only constraint, and filter capability. There is 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 list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers source, usage restriction, and filter behavior. It does not mention pagination or result limits, but the low complexity and presence of an output schema mean the description is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 already documents the query parameter fully ('Optional ticker or name substring'), and the description's 'Optional query filters by ticker or name' largely duplicates that. No additional meaning like case sensitivity, matching rules, or wildcard behavior is provided. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'List BRVM-listed equities from the official brvm.org quotes table'. The word 'List' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_quote and get_ohlcv, which clearly target single-item data. The 'research-only' qualifier adds further specificity.

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 through its 'research-only' qualifier and the optional filter, but it does not explicitly guide the agent on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_quote or get_ohlcv. There is no when-not-to-use or alternative routing, leaving the selection largely to inference.

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