get_broker_login_instructions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that instructions are returned, but does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires an established session, the format of the instructions, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that interacts with broker-specific data.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and object. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary detail, making it appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate: it names the operation and the resource. However, it omits relevant context such as when these instructions are needed, whether they are for the broker's web portal or API, and how they relate to authentication workflows. It lacks enough contextual depth to fully support an agent in selecting and using the tool effectively.

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 schema already documents the broker parameter with a description and enum values, achieving 100% coverage. The description phrase 'for a specific broker' adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: fetching detailed login instructions for a specific broker. The verb 'Get' combined with the resource 'detailed login instructions' and the qualifier 'for a specific broker' makes the purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate_broker, which performs the actual login, and list_brokers, which lists available brokers.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a broker must be set active), nor does it reference related tools like authenticate_broker or set_active_broker. The usage context is entirely implied rather than stated.

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