fahali_get_bundle

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the description is free to add genuine value: it is authenticated, views run in parallel, and failed views are named explicitly rather than silently producing a partial read. That failure-mode disclosure is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core promise and the failure semantics come first and the detail guidance closes it. Minor tension: it calls the bundle 'compact' while the schema defaults detail to full-fidelity 'audit', which is slightly confusing in an otherwise tight statement.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it covers what matters for correct invocation: view selection, defaults, depth tradeoff, and partial-failure behavior. The default mismatch between 'brief' advice and the schema's 'audit' default is the one unresolved wrinkle.

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 baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by naming the default view set and by recommending the 'brief' depth over the schema's actual default of 'audit', which an agent would otherwise miss. It does not explain the symbols or since parameters, keeping it at 4.

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 concrete verb and resource — fetch a named set of market-intelligence views in a single response envelope — and the emphasis on bundling implicitly separates it from the many single-view siblings. It never names a specific sibling to avoid, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives explicit operating guidance: choose only the views needed, defaults are stated (market_decision, briefing, risk_score, regime, conviction), and 'use detail=brief unless raw evidence is required' is a clear conditional. No explicit when-not-to-use versus the individual getters, so not a 5.

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