get_trigger_range

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a genuine behavioral constraint: a paid Kite Connect subscription with market data access is required and the free Personal tier is excluded. That entitlement caveat is valuable. However, it says nothing about the response shape (per-instrument min/max bounds), error behavior for ineligible instruments, or rate limits.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, entitlement caveat second, zero filler. The only marginal content is the explicit 'not included in the free Personal tier' clarification, which is nonetheless actionable for an agent diagnosing a failure.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum indicate what comes back (a min/max trigger price per requested instrument) and that the call presupposes Cover Order eligibility. Purpose and entitlement are covered; the return contract and the effect of transaction_type are not.

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 50%: `instruments` is documented in the schema, but `transaction_type` has only the enum with no explanation of how BUY vs SELL changes the trigger range — a non-obvious semantic. The description never mentions either parameter or the 50-item array limit, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — the valid stop-loss trigger price range — scoped to Cover Order instruments. That is far more informative than the bare name, but it doesn't position the tool against related siblings such as calculate_order_margins or place_order (e.g., 'call this before placing a CO order').

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is validation data needed when constructing a Cover Order, but the description never says when to call it, whether it is a prerequisite to place_order, or what to do if the instrument isn't CO-eligible. No alternatives are mentioned.

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