list_brokers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, but a zero-parameter enumeration tool has little behavior to disclose. It states what is enumerated, but says nothing about ordering, whether a default/active broker is marked, or whether the list can be empty or require authentication.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the resource first and its returned attributes second, with zero filler. It is terse to the point of being a fragment, but nothing is wasted.

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 zero parameters and an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, so what remains is sufficient to call the tool correctly. The only real gap is the unresolved overlap with get_capabilities.

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 tool takes no parameters, so the schema-coverage baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly avoids inventing filter options that the empty schema does not support.

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?

Specific verb 'List' plus a precise resource ('configured brokers'), and it names the returned fields (supported markets, capability flags) so the agent knows what it reveals. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_capabilities, which could plausibly return overlapping capability data.

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?

Usage is only implied by the 'list' verb – an agent can infer this is a discovery call to run before broker-specific operations. There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no guidance on how this differs from get_capabilities, which is the one ambiguity worth resolving.

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