List Brokers

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the disclosure burden, and 'List' plus a zero-argument schema reasonably communicates a read-only enumeration. However, it says nothing about whether the catalogue is complete, static, or paginated, and gives no indication of ordering or how many entries an agent should expect.

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 with no filler, stating the action, the resource and the key returned attribute. It is appropriately sized for a trivial zero-argument tool, though it could name the code field explicitly.

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 no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient, but a small gap remains: the agent does not learn the shape of the response (names vs. codes, ordering, completeness) beyond the one clause 'with their codes'. For a simple enumeration tool this is adequate rather than 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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description's only relevant contribution is clarifying that the output pairs each institution with its code, which is outside schema scope here.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List the brokerages and institutions that publish research') plus the returned field ('with their codes'), so the intent is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings, though none of search_research, get_research, find_stock or list_industries overlap in an ambiguous way.

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: an agent can infer this is the reference/lookup tool to call when it needs a broker identifier before searching research. There is no statement of when to prefer it over a search or lookup via another tool, and no mention of prerequisites such as whether an identifier from this list is required elsewhere.

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