extract_indicators_by_position

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the batch engine, single PDF fetch, batched LLM, python extractors, computed ratios, bundle cache, and the crucial behavior that realtime/external indicators are NOT extracted but returned in `skipped`.

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?

Front-loads the core operation in the first sentence and follows with the mechanism and the skip behavior. The engine internals parenthetical is dense but each clause conveys real behavior; nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the description covers the extraction scope, the CSV default, and the skip semantics. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though the relationship to extract_indicators remains implicit.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description adds the default CSV path and clarifies the `indicators`/`skipped` semantics, but does not add format or syntax detail 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?

States a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('the indicators named in a position CSV') scoped to one company/year, which is clearly more specific than the generic siblings like extract_indicators or get_indicator. It never names those siblings, so the agent must infer the distinction.

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?

Implies usage through the CSV-driven workflow but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus extract_indicators or list_indicators. The note that realtime/external indicators land in `skipped` is helpful context but not routing guidance.

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