list_brokers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions the return of 'list of broker names and their authentication status' but does not disclose potential latency, caching, or whether the availability is real-time. For a simple list, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and includes a clear 'Returns:' line. Every word earns its place with no fluff.

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 tool is simple, with no parameters and a straightforward output. The description covers the purpose and return format adequately. The presence of an output schema reduces the need for further detail.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 4. The description adds value by specifying the return content (list of broker names and authentication status), which is beyond the empty schema.

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 'Lists all registered brokers and their availability,' specifying the verb 'Lists' and the resource 'registered brokers.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'broker_comparison' and 'broker_status' by focusing on listing all brokers with authentication status, not comparison or status of one.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any when-not or exclusions. It simply states what it does without contextualizing its use relative to sibling tools like 'broker_comparison' or 'broker_status'.

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