get_buybacks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds only the Pro+ subscription requirement and a 50-instrument limit (which duplicates the schema). It does not disclose return format, error behavior, or any other operational quirks, leaving the agent with minimal behavioral context.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every word adds value: the action, the data scope, the limit, and the access requirement. 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?

For a simple single-parameter read tool, the description covers the essential selection and invocation criteria: what data, which instruments, and any restrictions. The absence of an output schema is not critical here, though return details would improve completeness. The description is adequate for an agent to decide when and how to use it.

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 schema already covers instList with 100% description. The tool description adds the 'Nordic' qualifier, which clarifies the type of instruments expected. This extra context helps the agent understand what identifiers to pass, going slightly beyond the schema's generic 'instrument IDs'.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Get share buyback data' specifies the exact action and data type. The description also scopes to 'Nordic instruments' and a limit of 50, distinguishing it from other market-data siblings like get_stock_prices or get_short_positions.

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 for buyback data but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. It mentions the Nordic scope and Pro+ requirement, which are contextual, but no direct comparison with sibling tools.

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