get_equities_master

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true and destructiveHint false. The description adds value by noting the tool is free and returns all listed stocks when parameters are omitted, which annotates the default behavior beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is reasonably concise, includes a clear args section, and uses brief lists for use cases. It could be slightly more compact but is not verbose, earning a high score.

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?

Given the output schema exists (covering return values), the description adequately covers inputs and behavior. The tool has only two optional parameters, both well-described, making the description complete for its complexity.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by detailing the code parameter (5 digits, 4-digit matches ordinary shares only) and date format (YYYYMMDD or YYYY-MM-DD), providing critical semantics entirely missing from 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns listed stock master data including company name, industry code, and market segment. It lists specific use cases (e.g., ticker lookup, sector code) and indicates that omitting parameters returns all stocks for today, distinguishing it from search-oriented siblings like search_equities.

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 provides explicit use cases and explains the effect of omitting parameters, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like search_equities or state when not to use this tool. However, the given context is sufficient for typical usage.

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