broker_distribution

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing side effects (writes a .svg file, may open the browser), the gating account requirement (Rp 10,000,000 balance and the error it produces), the output form (image plus savedTo path), and edge-case behavior (empty diagram on holidays is expected). This is rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 every sentence earns its place: core purpose first, then diagram semantics, output behavior, date rules, data_type, requirements, and an edge case. It is front-loaded with the most important facts and avoids fluff or repetition.

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 tool with 17 parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing context: return value semantics (savedTo path), output format (SVG image), error conditions (account balance, holiday empties), and how it differs from its closest sibling. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly without further inference.

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 adds real value on top by explaining date format and override behavior, the IDR vs LOTS distinction, the impact of market_board=ALL ('changes the numbers a lot'), and the purpose of save_path. It doesn't explicitly narrate every parameter, but the additional clarifications are meaningful.

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 and resource: renders broker-to-broker flow as an SVG diagram, and clearly differentiates itself from broker_summary by explaining the difference in scope ('who they accumulated it from' vs. 'how much a broker accumulated'). The layout semantics (buyer left, seller right) further pin down what the tool produces.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use broker_summary instead ('Use broker_summary for per-broker figures') and clarifies what this tool deliberately does not do ('does NOT return a table of numbers'). It also gives precise date selection rules (period preset OR both from/to, from/to override), data_type meaning, and the weekend/holiday expectation.

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