logout_broker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds 'in your session' which indicates it affects the current session state, but it does not disclose side effects such as token invalidation, need for re-authentication, or impact on orders. This is minimal but not misleading.

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, clear sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 low complexity (one optional param, no nested objects, no output schema), the description adequately covers the main action and the 'all' option. However, it does not mention default behavior when the parameter is omitted or the return value, so it is not fully complete.

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 100% coverage for the single parameter, including its enum values and a description ('Broker name or all'). The description repeats the 'specific or all' concept but adds no extra syntax or behavioral detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Logout') and identifies the resource ('broker or all brokers in your session'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like set_active_broker or authenticate_broker by indicating an action to end a session.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (when the agent needs to log out of a broker session) and the 'specific or all' scope provides context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so a score of 4 is appropriate.

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