Get Sector Heatmap

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the specific sector list and momentum-based methodology, but does not disclose any other behavioral aspects such as output format or potential limitations. This is acceptable but not rich, consistent with a 3 given the strong annotation coverage.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and includes only essential details (sector list, momentum approach, purpose). No wasted words, and it is easily skimmed by an agent.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description does not explicitly describe what the agent will receive (e.g., a heatmap, momentum scores, or a rotation ranking). The core purpose is clear, but the lack of return-value information leaves a gap for an agent deciding whether this tool satisfies its need.

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, and the schema trivially covers 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline score of 4 is appropriate because the description avoids unnecessary parameter noise and does not mislead.

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 a specific action: 'Scans the 11 major S&P sector ETFs' to 'identify sector rotation'. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_market_analysis (broad market) or scan_watchlist (user-defined symbols), and the verb+resource+outcome is 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?

The description implies usage when sector rotation analysis is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative tools. The use case is clear but not directly contrasted with siblings.

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