sentiment_analysis

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only restates the core action without revealing behaviors like what happens when no interval is provided, which sentiment labels are counted, or the structure of the returned data. It does not contradict any annotations since there are none, but it adds minimal behavioral context.

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, direct sentence containing no filler or redundant information. Every word earns its place, making it easily scannable and efficient.

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 and complete parameter documentation, the description is minimally viable. However, it leaves open questions about the optional interval's default and the exact return format, which are not covered by an output schema. For an agent to invoke it confidently, a bit more context about these behaviors would be needed.

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 provides complete coverage of the lone parameter 'interval' with format examples, so the schema largely carries parameter meaning. The description's phrase 'selected time interval' mirrors the schema without adding extra semantic depth, thus 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 clearly states it returns the number of articles grouped by sentiment label for a time interval. It uses a specific verb ('returns') and identifies the resource (articles by sentiment label), which distinguishes it from generic list tools. However, it does not explicitly mention any sibling tool like article_statistics, so it misses the highest level of differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The 'selected time interval' hints at the interval parameter, but the description does not explain whether the parameter is required, optional, or what the default behavior is, nor does it suggest any exclusions or alternative tools.

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