get_margin_loan_restrictions_announcement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'gets' an announcement, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral aspects like whether this requires authentication, rate limits, freshness of data, or what format the announcement returns. For a financial data tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical gaps.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any fluff. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 has zero parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description covers the basic purpose adequately. However, with no annotations and a complex sibling set, it lacks guidance on usage context and behavioral traits, making it minimally viable but incomplete for optimal agent operation.

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 (schema coverage 100%), so the description doesn't need to explain any inputs. It appropriately focuses on the output (announcement retrieval) without redundant parameter details. A baseline of 4 is justified since there are no parameters to document.

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 action ('Get announcement') and the specific resource ('margin loan and short sale restrictions'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its many siblings (e.g., get_suspended_day_trading_announcement, get_shareholder_meeting_announcements) that also retrieve announcements, which prevents a perfect score.

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. With 100+ sibling tools, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient for a complex financial domain.

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