Warrant Issuers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the tool's safe, idempotent nature is clear. The description adds that it returns a list of issuers with specific fields, which aligns with annotations. No contradictions, and the description reinforces the read-only behavior.

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 succinct sentences: first states the function and return format, second provides usage guidance. No unnecessary words. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, what it returns, and how to use its output. Complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

No parameters are defined in the input schema, so the description doesn't need to elaborate on parameters. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the purpose and output.

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 uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'HK warrant issuer information', and explicitly states the return structure (issuers[]{id, name_en, name_cn}). It distinguishes from sibling tools like warrant_list by hinting at the id's use for filtering, making the purpose very clear.

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?

Explicitly states to 'Use id in warrant_list issuer filter', indicating when to use this tool (to obtain issuer IDs for subsequent filtering). While it doesn't list alternatives, the context of sibling tools implies it's a preparatory step. No explicit when-not, but clear guidance.

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