broker_comparison

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves comparison data (pricing, holdings, orders) and lists parameters affecting output. It implies read-only behavior, but does not detail data scope across all brokers.

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 concise: one sentence for purpose, then a structured list of parameters. No redundant information. Every element is necessary.

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 tool's complexity (3 optional parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the main purpose and all parameters. It does not specify the number of brokers compared or the exact format, but the output schema likely fills those gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It does so clearly: symbols filter, include_orders boolean, max_orders integer. Each parameter's purpose is explained, adding semantic meaning beyond the schema types.

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 clearly states the tool provides a side-by-side broker comparison for pricing, holdings, and orders. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like portfolio or positions by emphasizing cross-broker comparison.

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 when a multi-broker comparison is needed, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The context is clear, but exclusions are missing.

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