getDelistedCompanies

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint) already indicate a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context, only stating it returns a 'comprehensive list' without details on pagination, data freshness, or scope limitations.

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?

Two sentences with a clear front-loaded purpose. Slightly promotional language ('Stay informed', 'avoid trading in risky stocks') but overall concise and no unnecessary detail.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return type (list of delisted companies from US exchanges). However, it lacks details on pagination behavior, sorting, or additional context that would help an agent interpret results, making it minimally complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with 'page' and 'limit' already described. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so 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 clearly states the tool retrieves a list of delisted companies from US exchanges, using the verb 'Access' and specifying the resource. It implies a distinct purpose from sibling tools like 'getActivelyTradingList' but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 mentions a use case ('avoid trading in risky stocks') but provides no guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives. No explicit usage boundaries or comparisons with siblings.

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