list_instruments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions that the operation returns 'full instrument details,' which is a read-only listing. However, it lacks additional context such as potential response size, pagination, or any side effects, though as a list operation these are relatively predictable.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every clause earns its place. It succinctly states the scope, optional filters, and return type without redundancy.

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?

Given a simple list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: scope, optional filters, and return value. It lacks details on pagination or large result handling, but for a basic list endpoint this is not a critical gap. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 provides 100% coverage for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by stating that filtering is optional, which clarifies that none of the parameters are required and they can be combined. This is a valuable semantic addition beyond the schema's individual property descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Nordic instruments'), and clearly differentiates from sibling tools like list_global_instruments by specifying the Nordic scope. It also lists the optional filters, making the tool's function unambiguous.

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 context is clear: use this tool to list Nordic instruments with optional filters. However, no explicit guidance is given on when to prefer this over alternatives such as search_instruments or list_global_instruments, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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