find_similar_etf

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns side-by-side metrics (size, liquidity, NAV premium) and that base_date is resolved backwards to a day with data. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but the list semantic implies it.

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 well-structured: a concise opening statement, an illustrative example that adds context without bloat, and a clean parameter list. Every sentence contributes value and the format is easy to parse.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return formats. It covers purpose, use cases, and all parameter semantics, and even provides a concrete example. No critical gaps are apparent for a read-only list tool.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description's Args section fully documents all four parameters: code_or_name, sort_by (with all allowed values), base_date (including backward resolution), and limit (max peers). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 every ETF tracking the same underlying index as the given one, using the specific verb 'List' and defining the resource scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on peer comparison rather than quotes, history, or ranking.

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 provides a clear use case ('which of these should I hold?') and an illustrative example comparing ETFs tracking the same index. It implies when to use the tool but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of full guidance.

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