investor_get_news_digest

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals the key behavioral trait that the tool does not fetch news but only computes targets. However, it omits other details like whether it is read-only, side effects, or required permissions.

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 two sentences but the first sentence uses jargon ('portfolio-derived targets') and is somewhat dense. It could be more streamlined. Still, no redundancy.

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 no output schema and 5 parameters, the description lacks crucial information. It does not describe output format or parameter constraints, leaving an agent with insufficient detail to use 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?

Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema), and the description does not explain any parameter (period, from_date, etc.) beyond their names. The tool has 5 parameters but no guidance on their meaning or usage.

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 that the tool computes research targets from portfolio holdings and describes the output as research_targets. It distinguishes the tool from news-fetching tools by explicitly saying 'does NOT fetch news.' However, the phrasing 'Dynamic research brief' is slightly vague.

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 explains the tool's role: it computes what to look up, not the actual news. It signals that the assistant should web-search the returned targets. This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not mention exclusions or alternatives.

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