analyze

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by disclosing confidence is not probability, stops at 90 by construction, missing pillars redistribute weight, floor-locked stocks degrade the flow pillar, and community sentiment is never scored. It also discloses cost (~27 upstream requests), which is highly relevant behavior for an agent deciding whether to call this tool.

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 long but densely packed, with clear headed sections and the main purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Each section justifies its existence: confidence caveat, pillar weights, limitations, floor-locked behavior, cost, and alternative routing.

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 complex composite-analysis tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns, what it cannot do, edge-case behavior, cost, and when to use alternatives. An agent has enough context to decide whether to invoke it and to interpret its result correctly.

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. The description still adds meaningful context by explaining the cost implication of bar count, how broker_period affects request count, that sentiment is counted but never scored, and how pillar weights interpret the inputs.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb ('Weigh'), a specific resource ('one IDX stock'), and a concrete output ('a single lean — bullish, neutral or bearish — with a confidence score and the evidence'). It is immediately clear this is a composite analysis tool and how it differs from data-only siblings like technicals or broker_summary.

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 explicitly says to use `technicals` or `timeframe_alignment` if the agent only wants the numbers, giving a clear alternatives condition. It also provides strong context on when the output is less trustworthy: no analyst consensus, valuation weak for certain sectors, floor-locked stocks unreliable, and sentiment never scored.

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