get_sector_stocks

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

The tool is a simple read operation, and the description implies no side effects. However, with no annotations provided, the description could more explicitly state that it is read-only and disclose any limits on count or behavior for unknown sectors.

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 front-loaded with the purpose. It includes both a summary and parameter documentation. The bilingual nature slightly reduces conciseness but is still clear.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description adequately covers the input parameters and basic behavior. It could mention the output format or error handling, but for a simple list retrieval tool, this is sufficient.

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 Args section adds meaningful descriptions for both parameters: sector_name is explained with examples, and count has a default value and purpose. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 function: fetching a list of stocks for a specific sector. It provides example queries and mentions partial matching, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_sectors or get_theme_stocks.

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 gives examples of when to use the tool (sector-related questions) and mentions partial matching support. However, it does not explicitly contrast with similar tools like get_theme_stocks or provide guidance on when not to use it.

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