octagon-agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While it mentions the tool 'orchestrates all agents' and lists data sources, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, or error handling. The description focuses on capabilities rather than operational 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 front-loaded with purpose and capabilities, but becomes verbose with the lengthy list of data sources and multiple example queries. While all content is relevant, the example section could be more concise. The structure is logical but could be more efficiently 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?

Given this is a complex orchestration tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, error conditions, or operational constraints. The example queries help but don't compensate for the lack of behavioral and output documentation needed for effective agent use.

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 100% with the single 'prompt' parameter well-documented as 'Your natural language query or request for the agent.' The description adds value through example queries that illustrate what constitutes a good prompt, but doesn't provide additional parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already states.

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 'orchestrates all agents for comprehensive market intelligence analysis' and lists specific capabilities like SEC filings, earnings calls, financial metrics, etc. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing comprehensive multi-source analysis, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling tools for comparison.

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 provides clear context with 'Best for: Complex research requiring multiple data sources and comprehensive analysis across public and private markets.' It includes example queries that illustrate appropriate use cases. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or directly compare it to the sibling tools by name.

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