get_security_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds context by listing the kinds of fields returned and implies a read-only lookup. It does not mention any edge cases, whether data is live/reference, or error behavior, so it provides only basic transparency.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by concrete examples. Every word earns its place; no filler.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description gives enough to select and invoke the tool: it names the required input type (ticker) and the nature of the output (full specification with example fields). It does not explain the return structure or update/historical behavior, but that is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity.

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 documents the single 'security' parameter with a description and ticker examples (100% coverage). The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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'), a specific resource ('full specification of a security'), and concrete examples of contents (ISIN, face value, issue date, trading boards). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_security_indices or search_securities, so it stops short of full 5.

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 the tool should be used when a full reference specification for a ticker is needed, and the input schema clarifies a security ticker is required. However, there is no explicit when-not or alternative tool guidance despite the large sibling set, so the agent must infer usage.

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