supervisor_messages

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

Annotations already establish a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation, and the description adds content-scope context through its notice categories. It does not explain freshness, ordering, limit behavior, or whether full_text controls truncation, leaving operational transparency thin.

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 single compact phrase is front-loaded with the resource and uses the colon effectively to list representative notice types. The bilingual parenthetical is potentially useful for this domain, and there is no filler.

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 simple four-parameter read tool, the description and annotations are sufficient to infer a basic call, especially since symbol and market have schema guidance. With no output schema, however, the absence of retrieval scope, recency or ordering, result-format context, and full_text semantics leaves noticeable gaps.

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 documents market and symbol, but limit and full_text have only titles, types, and defaults, and the description adds no parameter guidance. In particular, it never explains what full_text changes or clarifies how limit applies, so it does not compensate for the 50% schema description coverage.

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 identifies a distinct resource, "Exchange supervisor notices," and concretely scopes it to "trading restrictions, clarifications, halts," with a Persian term aiding domain recognition. It does not state an explicit retrieval verb or differentiate the tool from siblings such as codal_filings, so it is clear rather than fully discriminating.

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 listed notice types imply when to use it: when looking for supervisor restrictions, clarifications, or halts. There is no explicit when-not guidance or routing to alternatives such as market_status for current state or codal_filings for company disclosures.

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