Themes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the non-obvious semantic that filtered counts are still whole-theme counts, which prevents a real misinterpretation; it does not mention pagination or result-size limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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 the tool returns, then the filtering caveat, then the id-reuse instruction. Slightly dense and run-on in the middle clause, but every sentence carries necessary information with no 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and explains the filter semantics and id handoff. It stops short of describing item structure or ordering guarantees for the sort options, but nothing critical to invoking the tool is missing.

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% and the sort enum values are already documented in the schema. The description still adds meaning the schema lacks: what symbol/sector filtering actually does and that the counts are not narrowed by it, which is the main semantic trap for these parameters.

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?

States the specific resource (standing news themes) and what each item carries — developments, statements, 24-hour volume, distinct sources, sentiment counts — so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It is clearly distinct from sibling listing tools like find_topics or trending.

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?

Gives explicit conditional behavior for symbol/sector ('only the themes that have statements about it') and routes the agent to the correct alternative when per-symbol statements are needed: 'use search_statements with theme_id and symbol'. It also tells the agent to reuse the returned id as theme_id in other tools, which is real workflow guidance.

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