get_firm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of the returned payload (pricing, profit split, rules, payout speed, platforms, referral link), which is useful. However, it says nothing about read-only semantics, error behavior for an invalid slug, rate limits, or whether the response is cached/live — gaps that matter for a lookup tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Front-loaded and efficient in intent, but the second half is a wholesale duplication of the enum list already present in the input schema, which is waste in the description channel. Two sentences is otherwise appropriate for a one-parameter tool.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the fields returned, which is the key missing piece for callers. Combined with a fully documented parameter, an agent has enough to invoke correctly; only authentication/error context is absent.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'slug' parameter is fully documented in-schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description only repeats the valid-values list that already exists in the schema rather than adding format, normalization, or fallback semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed information about a specific futures prop trading firm') and enumerates the data returned (pricing, profit split, rules, payout speed, platforms, referral link), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. The word 'specific' implies single-entity lookup against the sibling list/search/compare tools, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'a specific firm' suggests this is the single-firm detail lookup as opposed to compare_firms or search_firms, but the description never states when to choose it over those siblings or what prior step (e.g., list_firms) supplies the slug. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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