extract_finance_landscape

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this. It specifies that the tool queries five specific external sources simultaneously, returns a unified timestamped report, and has a practical limitation ('Up to 5 tickers' mentioned in schema). However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or potential data freshness issues that would be helpful for an agent.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and listing the five data sources. Every sentence adds value, though the Bloomberg Terminal comparison at the end feels slightly promotional rather than strictly functional. The structure efficiently communicates the tool's scope without unnecessary fluff.

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 (composite queries across five sources) and lack of output schema, the description does a good job explaining what the tool returns ('unified 5-source timestamped report') and its composite nature. However, it could better address how the five data streams are integrated or what the report structure looks like, which would help an agent understand the output format.

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?

With 75% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema descriptions (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'max_length' affects the report or provide examples for 'github_query' beyond what the schema says). The description focuses on the tool's composite nature rather than parameter details.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: it's a composite financial intelligence tool that simultaneously queries five specific data sources (Yahoo Finance, Hacker News, Reddit, GitHub, product changelog) for ticker symbols. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the only one that combines these five sources into a unified report, unlike specialized siblings like extract_yc or extract_github.

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 for when to use this tool: for developers needing a multi-source financial intelligence report. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., use extract_yc for Y Combinator data instead). The Bloomberg Terminal comparison implies a unique value proposition but doesn't offer concrete guidance on tool selection.

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