Investments Get Security

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

Annotations already convey that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description itself adds no behavioral context. It does not mention what is returned, whether the result is a single object, or how output_mode affects the response.

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 short sentence is not effective conciseness here; it is under-specification. The description contains no front-loaded semantic content beyond the tool title.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is far too thin. It omits what a security is, what the response contains, and how this call relates to the broader investments tool family, forcing the agent to rely entirely on the schema and name inference.

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 documents fields and output_mode reasonably well, but security_id has no description and the tool description provides no parameter insight. With only 67% schema coverage, the description should compensate for the undocumented required parameter but does not.

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 is essentially a verbatim restatement of the tool title: 'Get security.' adds no conceptual information beyond the name. It does not define what a security is or differentiate this from sibling tools like investments_get_holding or investments_search_securities.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria. An agent gets no help deciding between investments_get_security, investments_get_holding, or investments_search_securities.

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