get_security_indices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It identifies the operation as a read-only lookup ('Get all indices'), which implies no side effects. However, it does not mention return format, potential error cases, or whether the result is a simple list of index names or full index objects, leaving some ambiguity.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it immediately clear to an agent what the tool does.

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 tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description states the essential outcome: retrieving indices containing a given security. It could specify the return type more explicitly, but overall it provides enough context for correct invocation.

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 complete coverage of the one parameter, including examples ('Security ticker (e.g. 'SBER', 'GAZP')'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema's existing explanation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all indices that contain a given security'), clearly stating the tool's function. It is distinct from siblings like get_security_info or get_index_analytics because it focuses on index membership rather than security details or index analytics.

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 clearly conveys the use case: when you have a security ticker and need the indices that include it. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the context is unambiguous and the single parameter makes the invocation straightforward.

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