Broker Queue

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

Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. Description adds value by detailing the return structure (bid_brokers/ask_brokers arrays with position and broker IDs) and advising to use participants for names, which is beyond what annotations provide.

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, front-loaded with purpose. Every word adds value: states action, scope, output structure, and mapping hint. No redundancy.

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 low complexity, rich annotations, full schema coverage, and output schema described, the description is complete. It covers purpose, scope, output format, and cross-reference to participants tool.

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 one parameter 'symbol' with schema description 'Security symbol, e.g. "700.HK"'. Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it. Description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema example.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Get', resource 'broker queue', and scope 'HK only'. It differentiates from sibling tools like broker_holding, broker_holding_daily, broker_holding_detail, and participants by specifying it returns bid/ask broker queues with position and broker IDs.

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?

Description provides clear context for using this tool to get broker queue for HK stocks. It mentions mapping broker IDs to names via participants, implying a complementary tool, but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or compare with alternatives.

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