analyze_trends

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full transparency burden. It explains that periods are 'Number of annual periods to include (1-8)' but does not disclose calculation methodology, handling of missing data, or output format. The behavioral detail beyond purpose is minimal.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear summary sentence followed by an Args block. No redundant text; every line contributes useful information.

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 3-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose and parameter semantics well. It lacks details on calculation edge cases, but the output schema reduces the need to explain return values. Overall reasonably complete for its complexity.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates thoroughly: it lists common metric values (e.g., 'Total Revenue', 'Net Income'), clarifies periods are annual and range 1-8, and provides a ticker example ('AAPL'). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Analyse YoY / period-over-period growth trends for a financial metric.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_income_statement (raw data) and calculate_financial_ratios (ratios) by focusing on growth trend analysis.

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 for growth trend analysis but does not explicitly compare to alternatives. It provides parameter guidance (common metric values, periods range) but lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use scenarios or references to sibling tools.

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