proxy_full_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that fight, litigation, and block calls are always parallel, agm_result is only called when a fight is detected, and if all data is missing, a single line is returned. This provides significant insight into internal behavior.

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 well-structured with clear sections (desc, when, rule, ref) and is concise. Every sentence adds value, and the format is front-loaded.

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 tool's complexity and conditional logic, the description provides essential context about how sub-tools are combined and fallback behavior. An output schema exists but is not shown; the description does not need to document return values. It could be improved by mentioning output format or structure.

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 must compensate. However, it does not describe any parameters (ticker, year, format) beyond what is in the schema. The meaning of parameters is not elaborated, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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 tool provides comprehensive analysis of management rights disputes integrating proxy fight, litigation, large holdings, and voting results. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it combines multiple sub-tools like proxy_fight, proxy_litigation, ownership_block, and agm_result.

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 specifies when to use the tool: when a full picture of a management dispute is needed, especially for tier-4 orchestrate. It also mentions it is automatically included in governance_report's PRX section, providing context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.

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