get_instrument

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

Annotations already communicate readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, but the description adds no further behavioral context such as auth requirements, rate limits, data freshness, or open-world caveats. It does not contradict 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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core content in 10 words.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations, this is minimally adequate: the return content is named and the parameter is inferable from the schema. However, it lacks an explicit output description and any usage context, so it is not complete.

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 only parameter (isin) has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention it, explain its format, or clarify that it is the lookup key. The tool name and property name carry the entire semantic burden.

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 identifies the resource (instrument master data) and enumerates contents (name, type, exchanges, tags). It is not tautological, but it does not explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like get_stock_details.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as search_instruments, get_quote, or get_stock_details. The implied use is for instrument master data lookup, but no when-not or alternative routing is provided.

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