get_share_by

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely behavioral detail beyond the schema: the id format is auto-detected across ticker/FIGI/ISIN/UID. It says nothing about error behavior for unknown ids, rate limits, or coverage of the open-world lookup, so it only partially goes past the annotations.

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 first sentence front-loads the purpose and the return fields, and the Args block is compact with no filler. Structure is efficient, though the embedded arg list is slightly dense and could be tighter for a three-parameter tool.

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?

With only three parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description supplies what an agent needs: the fields returned and the meaning/constraints of each identifier argument. Missing only the sibling routing (why this tool over get_instrument_by) to be fully self-sufficient.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does document all three parameters: the accepted identifier formats plus auto-detection for id, the conditional requirement for id_type, and a concrete board example ('TQBR') for class_code. It loses a point because the id_type note ('only needed with class_code: INSTRUMENT_ID_TYPE_TICKER') sits awkwardly against the enum's other values and the FIGI default, leaving a small ambiguity.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Get detailed share (stock) info') and enumerates the returned fields (sector, dividend yield, IPO date, issue size, country), so the agent knows exactly what a 'share' lookup yields. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling lookups such as get_instrument_by, get_bond_by, or list_shares, leaving the 'share vs. other instrument type' routing implicit.

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 Args block gives real parameter-level guidance ('id is recognised automatically', 'id_type only needed with TICKER', 'class_code to pick one listing out of several'), which implies the call pattern. There is no when-to-use-this-vs-an-alternative guidance and no mention of siblings like get_instrument_by or list_shares, so tool-selection context is absent.

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