get_tickers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not explain the year-scoped nature of the FCA mapping, the 500-default / 5000-cap row limit, or whether results paginate. For a lookup whose results depend on a reference year, that omission is meaningful.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with parenthetical examples and no filler. It is tight and readable, though at one clause it is arguably under-specified rather than merely concise.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the read-only profile. Still, a 4-parameter, year-scoped mapping tool with a crowded sibling list needs disambiguation from 'resolve' and a note on the year dimension; neither is present, leaving the definition thinner than the tool's complexity warrants.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (year, limit, ticker, cvm_codes) are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description only implies that ticker and cvm_codes act as filters; it adds no syntax or interaction detail (e.g., what happens when both ticker and cvm_codes are supplied).

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 concrete verb and resource: mapping tickers (with concrete examples PETR4, VALE3) to CVM codes and company names. The direction of the mapping and the output content are clear. It does not, however, contrast itself with the sibling 'resolve', which could plausibly do something similar, so an agent has to guess between them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus 'resolve', 'search_company', or 'list_companies', and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The only implicit usage signal is that a ticker is the input, which the schema already conveys.

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