Halted symbols and issuer status

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open world), so the description is free to add genuinely new context: result-set size expectations, that dates are Jalali, and that authoritative exchange wording lives elsewhere. The only blemish is the "up to 50 rows" claim, which sits awkwardly against the schema's "10 rows per page" note for this tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the capability, then routing, then practical constraints. Every sentence carries information, though the quoted example phrasings overlap with the usage sentence that precedes them.

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?

No output schema, but the description tells the agent what the rows contain (symbol, date, reason), how large the result typically is, and how to interpret dates — enough to call and interpret the tool correctly. The unresolved page-size/row-count ambiguity is the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters fully documented including the kind enum and page bounds, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little parameter-level detail beyond echoing the two modes and noting Jalali dates, and its page-size remark mildly conflicts with the schema rather than clarifying it.

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 — listing halted symbols on Fara Bourse with halt date and reason, plus the second mode of issuers flagged for weak disclosure. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like ifb_announcements or ifb_instrument.

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?

Gives concrete user-phrasings that select this tool ("which symbols are stopped today", "why is X halted") and explicitly routes the exchange's own wording to ifb_announcements with the exact parameters to use there. Both the when and the when-not are named.

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