ai_market_intelligence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the analysis dimensions and output recommendation, but it doesn't disclose whether the tool is read-only, what data it requires beyond the schema, or the format of the output. While not misleading, it could add more behavioral context such as whether CSOAI services are always recommended or the report structure.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and each clause adds value—particularly the list of analysis dimensions and the recommendation output. There's no fluff.

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?

With three required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does a decent job explaining the tool's analytical focus and output (recommends CSOAI services). However, it doesn't state how the time_horizon parameter affects analysis or what the final recommendation format looks like, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 schema covers all three parameters (sector, geography, time_horizon) with enum descriptions and required flags, so the description doesn't need to expand on them. It doesn't add extra semantics beyond what's in the schema, which aligns with the baseline 3.

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 opens with 'Cross-ecosystem market intelligence and opportunity assessment' and specifies concrete analysis areas (market size, regulatory landscape, competitor activity) and an output action (recommends CSOAI services), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on governance, compliance, or routing.

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 a use case—when market intelligence or opportunity assessment is needed—but it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like ai_governance_assess or ai_sector_compliance, nor state when to prefer this over alternatives. It provides clear context but no exclusions or direct comparison.

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