get_instrument_descriptions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the useful detail that both Swedish and English descriptions are returned and the limit of 50 instruments. However, it does not mention the return format, error behavior, or whether any permissions are required, leaving some opacity.

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. It is concise and every word adds value: action, resource, language variety, and limit. No fluff or repetition.

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 one parameter and no complex behavior. The description, together with the schema, provides enough to understand input and output. It lacks only minor details like response structure or error handling, which are not critical for a straightforward retrieval.

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 input schema documents the only parameter well ('Array of instrument IDs (max 50)'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds little beyond the schema, merely reflecting the 'up to 50' limit. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the action ('Get'), the resource ('descriptions'), and the scope ('Swedish and English', 'up to 50 instruments'). This uniquely identifies the tool among its siblings, which focus on prices, reports, or listings rather than descriptions.

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 implied by the tool's purpose: it is used when instrument descriptions are needed. However, the description provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives like list_instruments or search_instruments, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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