Resolve Contract

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description's 'Resolve' wording is consistent with a side-effect-free lookup. It does not describe failure modes, but the annotations lower the bar and no contradiction exists.

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, direct sentence with no redundant wording or unnecessary detail.

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?

The description plus the detailed schema and output schema are sufficient for invoking the tool correctly. It does not mention error behavior, but that is not essential for a straightforward resolution operation.

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 top-level description does not explain the 'instrument' parameter, but the nested SymbolSpec schema provides detailed descriptions for all fields. Since the schema carries the parameter documentation, the description adds little beyond identifying the parameter as a SymbolSpec.

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 ('Resolve') and names the input (SymbolSpec) and output (fully qualified IBKR contract), making the tool's purpose unambiguous relative to siblings.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: whenever a SymbolSpec needs to be converted into a concrete IBKR contract. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but no close alternative exists among siblings.

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