live_fno

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states a static fact about current securities and does not explain return format, real-time vs. delayed data, sorting, or any other behavior. This is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or output characteristics.

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 short but under-specified; it reads as a fragment rather than an informative sentence. Concise writing should preserve essential content, but here brevity sacrifices clarity and leaves the purpose ambiguous. This aligns with the low example where under-specification is not counted as good conciseness.

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 annotations, no output schema, and an empty input schema, the description is the only source of context. It is too minimal to understand what the tool returns or how it behaves. For a simple tool this might be marginally acceptable, but the absence of any verb or output description leaves significant gaps.

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 schema fully covers all arguments (vacuously 100% coverage). The description adds no parameter meaning, but with no parameters, there is nothing to explain. The baseline of 4 is appropriate since no compensation is needed.

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 a noun phrase ('Securities currently in the F&O segment') with no verb, so it doesn't clearly state an action like 'list' or 'get'. It vaguely indicates the resource but fails to specify the operation, and it does not differentiate from sibling tools that also relate to F&O 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 context, and no exclusions. The description provides no usage scenario or comparison to sibling tools such as stock_quote_fno or option_chain_contract_info.

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