List securities

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 useful behavioral context by saying the response includes holder counts and issued capital, but it says nothing about pagination, result size, or ordering for what could be a long list.

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 no filler; the resource, scope, and returned fields all appear immediately.

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 one-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, and with no output schema the mention of holder counts and issued capital partially substitutes for return-value documentation. It still leaves open how large the list can be, whether it is paginated, and what the absence of securities means.

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?

There is only one parameter and the schema documents it at 100% coverage, including the note that issuerId comes from list_issuers. The description's phrase 'an issuer's securities' reinforces that the parameter selects the issuer scope, so no meaning is missing beyond the schema.

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 ('List an issuer's securities') and scopes it to a single issuer, which separates it from list_issuers and get_top_holders. It also previews the returned fields (holder counts, issued capital), which further narrows the purpose, though it never names a sibling 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?

The description implies the context (you must already know the issuer), and the schema's issuerId note points at list_issuers as the source. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of when get_top_holders would be preferable.

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