Market Participants

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return shape and a usage hint but no additional behavioral context such as pagination or data freshness; this is adequate but not rich.

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 efficient sentences front-load the main purpose and return shape, then add a practical usage note. No filler or repetition of schema/annotation data.

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 zero-required-parameter, read-only tool, the description is complete: it documents the exact output shape and explains why the returned broker_ids matter. The schema's _jq is already fully documented, and annotations cover the behavioral profile.

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 only parameter is the optional _jq filter, and the input schema already describes it fully (100% coverage). The description adds no param-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a concrete resource ('HK market participant broker information'), and the exact fields returned (participants[]{broker_ids[], name_en, name_cn, name_hk}). It is clearly scoped, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'brokers'.

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 a clear downstream use case: 'Use broker_ids to interpret broker queue data.' This tells an agent when the result is needed, but it does not mention alternatives (e.g., 'brokers') or exclusion cases, so it falls short of explicit when/when-not guidance.

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