generate_investment_memo

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the bull/bear case is 'mechanically derived' from existing flags and labels rather than fabricated external research, and that Catalysts are 'omitted rather than invented.' This gives clear insight into the tool's data provenance and boundaries.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by two brief behavioral caveats and a param line. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 description explains what the tool produces (memo sections), how it derives the bull/bear case, what it intentionally excludes and why, and the required input. With an output schema also present, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description's ':param symbol: ticker symbol, e.g. RELIANCE, TCS.NS, or TCS.BO' is the only guidance for the single parameter. It provides concrete format examples, fully compensating for the empty schema description.

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 opens with a specific action — 'Compose analyze_company's output into a structured research-memo shape' — and enumerates the sections included in the memo. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling data-retrieval and analysis tools and names its direct input source.

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 implies the tool should be used after analyze_company has been run, since it composes that tool's output. It also states a clear limitation (no Catalysts section because analyst/news data is unavailable), which helps set expectations. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or provide an if/when-not rule, so it stops short of a 5.

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