dfm_list_securities

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

The description and parameter schema disclose key behaviors: optional search, case-insensitive matching, listing first 50 when empty, and total match count. This is sufficient given no annotations exist; however, it does not mention rate limits or authentication.

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 a single, focused sentence that conveys purpose and optionality without extraneous words. Every part contributes meaning.

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?

The tool description is concise but relies on the parameter schema for behavior details. Since an output schema exists, return format is not needed. The description is complete enough for a straightforward list 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter description already explains the search behavior. The tool description adds the phrasing 'no key' (no authentication), which is absent from the schema, but overall adds little beyond what the schema provides.

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 states it lists DFM-listed securities with optional filtering by symbol or name. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'dfm_index' (index info) and 'dfm_stock_quote' (single security quote).

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 implies usage for listing or searching securities but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like dfm_stock_quote for a specific security or dfm_index for market index. No 'when not to use' guidance.

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