Index Constituents / ETF Asset Allocation

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond annotations by detailing the different response structures for indexes and ETFs, including groupings and fields.

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 reasonably concise given the complexity, with clear separation of index and ETF modes using bullet points. A slight reduction in detail could be made, but no extraneous sentences are present.

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 no output schema, the description fully covers the return structure, including fields, groupings, and examples for both modes. It provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the output without additional documentation.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with a description. The tool description enhances this by explaining the valid symbol types (index vs ETF) and providing examples, which adds context beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 specifies the tool retrieves constituents of an index or asset allocation of an ETF, using specific verbs ('Get') and resources ('constituents', 'asset allocation'). It distinguishes between the two use cases with detailed output examples.

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 explicitly states the tool's context (index vs ETF) but does not compare it to sibling tools like 'fund_positions' or provide when-not-to-use guidance. It is clear enough for most agents to infer appropriate usage.

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