analyze_stock_move_root_cause

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly says 'read-only', which is a valuable safety signal, but it does not describe what kind of causal context is collected, whether it performs heavy analysis, or what side effects (if any) to expect. The phrase is useful but minimal.

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 one short sentence with no filler or repetition. The key qualifiers 'read-only' and 'around one stock move' are front-loaded and contribute directly to the agent's understanding.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, this is borderline adequate: an agent can infer the basic call shape. However, it lacks context about what 'causal context' means, how the result relates to the move, and how this tool differs from generate_move_root_cause_report, so the agent is left with meaningful ambiguity.

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, but it only loosely implies that move_id refers to a stock move. It does not explain the expected scope, format, or how the id is used to gather causal context. The schema's 'Move Id' title already conveys the only parameter, so the description adds little semantic value.

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 states a specific action ('Collect') and a resource ('read-only causal context around one stock move'), so an agent can tell this is an analysis/inspection tool rather than a CRUD operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling generate_move_root_cause_report, but the verb 'collect' and the singular move focus make the core purpose reasonably clear.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_stock_move_detail or generate_move_root_cause_report. The read-only phrasing implies safety, but there is no explicit context for choosing this tool over its siblings.

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