briefing_stock_history_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does explain the sentiment_score calculation formula and the automatic invocation, which is useful. However, it omits potential side effects like whether the record is appended or overwritten, auth requirements, or behavior on manual invocation.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a formula. It front-loads the core purpose, mentions the trigger, and then gives the scoring rule. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 9 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description provides essential scoring context and trigger. However, it does not mention return values, idempotency, or error scenarios, which would be expected given no annotations and no output schema. It is adequate but leaves gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the weighted-average formula for sentiment_score using emoji levels, which is not fully captured in the schema. It also ties the parameters to the digest workflow, providing context beyond the schema.

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 records a daily sentiment snapshot for a stock, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like briefing_stock_history_get by mentioning it is automatically called after briefing_stock_digest. This makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly states the tool is automatically invoked after briefing_stock_digest completes, providing a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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