Themes

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context: the non-obvious caveat that counts remain whole-theme even when filtered by symbol/sector, plus the id-reuse contract with other tools. No return-shape or pagination detail, but that is minor here.

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?

Front-loaded with what a theme is and what it returns, then the filter caveat and the id hand-off. The middle sentence is slightly convoluted ('the counts are still those of the whole theme, so use...'), but every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of enumerating the returned fields and the filter caveat, and it explains the id contract for downstream calls. Adequate for a 3-param, 0-required list tool; only the missing sibling differentiation keeps it from being fully complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the semantics of the symbol/sector filter (themes are matched, but the counts are not scoped to that symbol), which is the one behaviorally surprising parameter effect and is not captured in the schema.

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?

It names the resource ('standing subjects the news is grouped into') and enumerates what each item carries (developments, statements, 24-hour volume, sources, sentiment counts), which is more specific than a tautology. It distinguishes itself from search_statements but never contrasts with the sibling find_topics, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

It gives a clear conditional: 'With symbol or sector: only the themes that have statements about it,' and routes the agent to search_statements when per-symbol statements are wanted. It also states the follow-on usage ('use the returned id as theme_id in the other tools'). Missing is any guidance on when to prefer this over find_topics or get_topic.

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