broker_setup_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses meaningful behavior: the API key stays in a local .env file, is never committed, and the code only reads environment variables. This adds value beyond a simple 'check status' by explaining data handling. While it doesn't state side effects or failure modes, for a read-only status tool, this is sufficient.

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 compact and well-structured: a clear purpose sentence, a behavioral explanation, a security note, and an example. Every sentence earns its place without redundant phrasing. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage behavior, setup instructions, security context, and an example. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters, making schema coverage trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific information because none is needed. No additional semantic enrichment is required.

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?

Description clearly states 'Check Angel One SmartAPI integration status and get setup instructions,' naming a specific verb, resource, and broker. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fyers_status and icici_status by explicitly focusing on Angel One. It is not a tautology and provides a precise scope.

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 clear context: it shows whether credentials are configured and explains setup instructions, giving an implied when-to-use. The example 'broker_setup_status() → Check if Angel One is connected + setup guide' reinforces the use case. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as comparing with other broker status tools.

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