agm_pre_analysis

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that analysis is based on DART convocation notice, uses parallel chaining of all agm_*_xml, and does not include voting results. This is sufficient transparency for a read-only analysis tool, though no mention of auth or rate limits.

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?

Description is structured with 'desc', 'when', 'rule', 'ref', and argument descriptions. Core purpose is front-loaded. While slightly verbose, each section adds value. Could be tightened but effective.

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 complexity with many sibling tools and an output schema present, description covers what the tool does, how to use it, and constraints. It mentions parallel chaining and that this single tool replaces individual XML tools. Output schema exists, so return value details not needed.

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 has 0% description coverage, but description adds full semantics: ticker is stock code or company name, bgn_de defaults to Jan 1 of current year, end_de defaults to today. This adds meaningful context beyond schema, especially the default behaviors.

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?

Description explicitly states it's for pre-AGM comprehensive analysis based on convocation notice, covering agenda/financials/personnel/compensation/articles/treasury shares plus voting judgment criteria, and explicitly excludes voting results. Clearly distinguishes from sibling agm_post_analysis.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'when' section specifies use for pre-AGM analysis and voting judgment, 'rule' states it should be used instead of individual agm_*_xml tools unless explicitly requested, and references sibling agm_post_analysis for post-analysis. Also mentions tier-4 Orchestrate.

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