credit_ratings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the data source, the fields returned, and the fact that it is free. It does not mention error handling, data freshness, or potential limitations, but for a simple read-only retrieval tool this is largely 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 well-structured with an introduction, bullet list of outputs, args, and examples. The Bloomberg pricing detail adds context but is not essential for tool invocation, making it slightly less concise than necessary.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description provides all necessary context: purpose, input format, examples, and output fields. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool accurately.

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 only parameter, symbol, is fully defined in the description as an NSE stock symbol with concrete examples. The input schema provides only the parameter name and type, so the description adds necessary context and usage syntax.

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?

Clearly states the tool provides credit ratings for Indian listed companies from SEBI-mandated exchange filings. Lists specific data fields (agency, rating, action, instrument, outlook, filing date), which distinguishes it from all sibling tools focused on quotes, financials, and market data.

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?

Specifies input as NSE stock symbol and provides examples for RELIANCE and ADANIENT. The description implies use when credit rating information is needed, and the uniqueness of the tool among siblings removes ambiguity. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it.

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