List issuers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one piece of behavioral context beyond that — results are scoped to what the API app is permitted to access — but says nothing about pagination, result size, or ordering for an open-world listing.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler or repetition of the title. Every word carries information.

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 no-parameter, read-only listing tool this is close to sufficient, and annotations plus the empty schema cover the invocation mechanics. However, with no output schema, the description leaves the agent guessing at the shape and size of the returned issuer list, which is the main remaining gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline of 4 applies. The single sentence does not introduce any spurious parameter concepts.

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 pairs a specific verb ("List") with a specific resource ("issuers"), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_securities or list_distributions without ambiguity. It stops short of any explicit sibling differentiation or scope statement beyond the access qualifier.

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: the agent infers it should call this when it needs the set of issuers available to the app. The phrase "this API app can access" hints at a permission boundary but there is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative sibling tool.

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