list_branches

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. 'List' implies a read-only retrieval, and the sentence 'Each branch belongs to a sector' adds relational context. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, or any side effects, which is acceptable but not exhaustive.

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 that directly state purpose and a key use case. No redundancy or filler, every sentence earns its place.

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, parameterless list tool, the description is mostly complete: it names the resource, gives a hierarchical relationship, and mentions an application. It could mention output structure or whether it's paginated, but given the minimal complexity, this is 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially covered. The description adds value by explaining the domain context (branches belong to sectors) and how IDs are used, compensating for the lack of parameter detail.

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 tool lists all industry branches, a specific verb-resource pairing. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_sectors by noting branches belong to sectors, providing hierarchical context.

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 explains a key usage: 'Use branch IDs to filter instruments.' This gives context on when the tool is useful, though it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or mention exclusions.

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