broker_setup_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses security-relevant behavior (API key stays in local .env, never committed) and explains it shows status and instructions. However, it does not detail return values or error handling, which might be covered by the output schema.

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 concise, with a clear front-loaded purpose sentence. The security note and example add value without unnecessary length. It earns its place but could be slightly tighter.

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?

Given zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's functionality and adds security context. It is complete for a simple status check tool, though it could mention output specifics.

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 has zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter semantics. The schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds context about the tool's purpose and security, which is valuable beyond the empty 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 'Check Angel One SmartAPI integration status and get setup instructions', which is a specific verb-resource pair. It explicitly names 'Angel One', distinguishing it from sibling broker status tools like fyers_status and icici_status.

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 indicates when to use the tool: to check if Angel One credentials are configured and working, and to get setup instructions. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, though the sibling tools suggest other brokers.

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