resolve_isins

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return behavior for misses, guarantees no invented tickers, states that the rate limit is respected, and specifies that persistent HTTP failures raise a ToolError rather than silently returning nothing.

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 front-loaded with purpose and remains readable despite packing in use context and failure behavior. Minor redundancy around 'free/keyless/tier A/no signup' keeps it from being maximally tight.

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?

For a stateless mapping tool with no output schema, the description covers success behavior, miss behavior, rate limiting, and error handling. It could more explicitly state the concrete return structure, but the key invocation concerns are addressed.

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?

Only exch_code has a schema-level description, leaving isins under-documented. The description adds general mapping context but does not specify ISIN input format, list constraints, or the exact return container, so it only partially compensates for the 50% schema coverage.

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 definition clearly states the tool maps ISINs to tickers via the OpenFIGI API and explains the broker-export use case. It frames the output as a yfinance-style ticker needed by downstream tools, distinguishing it from related portfolio tools.

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?

It gives an explicit condition for use: when a broker export identifies a holding only by ISIN and another tool needs a ticker. It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or name alternative ISIN-resolution options, so it has clear context but no exclusion guidance.

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