agm_post_analysis

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

Without annotations, the description discloses the chaining behavior (agm_pre_analysis + agm_result), the condition about meeting completion affecting voting results, and the prohibition on individual XML tool calls. While it doesn't explicitly state read-only or authentication needs, the analysis nature implies safety, and the provided rules add sufficient transparency for agent understanding.

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 uses a structured format with labels (desc, when, rule, ref) and is concise at about 150 characters. It front-loads the purpose. However, the lack of parameter descriptions slightly reduces efficiency as the agent may need additional context, but overall it's well-organized.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers the tool's purpose, usage scenarios, and behavioral rules. However, the complete absence of parameter semantics leaves a significant gap for an analysis tool that likely needs date ranges. The agent might misuse it without understanding required inputs.

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% parameter description coverage, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (ticker, bgn_de, end_de). The agent must infer their meaning from the tool's purpose, which is insufficient for correct invocation. The description should at least describe the date range parameters.

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 performs post-analysis of AGM by integrating convocation notice and voting results. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly chaining agm_pre_analysis and agm_result, and prohibits calling individual XML tools, making its unique value proposition clear.

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 'when' condition specifies usage for AGM results/post-analysis when a complete pre+post picture is needed. The 'rule' provides explicit chaining instructions and warns about missing voting results if the meeting hasn't ended. It also explicitly prohibits calling individual XML tools, offering clear guidance on alternatives.

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