Securities underwritten on Fara Bourse

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, read-only open-world call, so the description's job is narrower and it delivers: sorted newest first, row contents enumerated (issuer, security type, subscription dates, count, rial amount, industry). It does not mention total counts, pagination limits, or whether the list is complete or truncated.

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?

Scope and ordering are front-loaded in the first sentence, usage and next-step routing follow. The enumerated row fields are dense but each maps to a real output column; no filler sentences.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the return-value burden by enumerating row fields and ordering, which is what an agent needs to decide if results answer the question. Minor gaps remain around result breadth (is the list exhaustive per page set?) and what `id` refers to exactly, though the forward routing hints at it.

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?

Only one optional parameter (`page`), and the schema already documents its default, bounds, and the 10-rows-per-page behavior at 100% coverage. The description adds nothing about paging strategy or how deep it is worth paging, so it sits at the schema-does-the-work baseline.

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 securities offered through underwriting on Fara Bourse') plus ordering ('newest first') and the local-language term پذیره‌نویسی, which disambiguates the concept. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the closest sibling, ifb_ipos, so an agent must infer that underwriting subscriptions and IPOs are different feeds.

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 a concrete use case quoted as a user question ('what was raised by underwriting recently') and notes the instrument classes covered (shares, sukuk, funds). It also routes forward ('Take the `id` to ifb_instrument or ifb_quote') but names no when-not condition or alternative list tool.

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