Market overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add real behavioral context beyond them: the partial-failure contract ('with all, a source that fails shows {"error": ...} and the other still answers') and the unit ('Money is Rial'). It stops short of freshness/timing or rate-limit details, so this is solid but not rich.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, the routing sentence is placed last where it helps selection, and the per-source breakdown is scannable. The middle enumeration is dense but each clause maps to something an agent would otherwise have to guess; only minor trimming is possible.

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 compensates well by describing what each source returns and how failures surface. Minor gaps remain around data freshness (only 'today') and response shape, but for a read-only snapshot tool the agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 are already documented in the schema, including the same breadth contents and prices default restated here. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond noting Rial units and that each source answers in its own block. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Show today's market snapshot') and then enumerates exactly what the snapshot contains per source (Mofid indices/value/volume/queues, Agah total index/money flow/movers/prices). It also names the adjacent tools and what each covers, so an agent can separate this from br_market_top, br_industries and br_rates without opening a schema.

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 an explicit entry-point rule ('Start here for "how is the bourse today"') and then routes elsewhere: br_market_top or br_stocks for rankings, br_industries for sectors, br_rates for price history. Both the when-to-use and the when-to-use-something-else conditions are stated.

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