get_conglomerate_constituents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses input and output but lacks details on behaviors like error handling, pagination, or data freshness. It is adequate for a simple read operation but not exceptional.

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, front-loaded with the main verb and object, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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 the simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, input, output, and differentiation. It lacks discussion of edge cases or error states, but for a straightforward retrieval tool, it is nearly complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining that tjiid is obtained from get_markets. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type constraints. A higher score would require more detail on valid values or behavior.

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 it retrieves all constituent companies of a conglomerate group, specifies the input (tjiid from get_markets), and details output (slug and price returns). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_sector_constituents by focusing on conglomerates and price performance vs ROE.

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 explains that the tjiid comes from get_markets({ tab: 'conglomerates' }) and contrasts with the conglomerates tab (ROE vs price returns). It provides clear context for when to use, though it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use.

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