market_intel_brief

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the content scope (shelf signals, macro gap, etc.) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. Safety and idempotency are unaddressed.

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 concise, front-loaded with a tag, and efficiently communicates purpose and replacement role without unnecessary words.

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 lists what the narrative includes (shelf signals, macro gap, etc.) but does not describe the output format or structure. Given the tool's complexity and lack of annotations, more detail on return values would improve completeness.

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 each parameter is already described in the input schema. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema descriptions, maintaining the baseline of 3.

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?

Clearly states it provides an intelligence narrative covering shelf signals, macro gap vs CPI, composite scores, and moat confidence. Distinguishes from siblings by explicitly saying it replaces indicators, analytics, and enrichment reads, which are likely separate tools.

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?

Indicates it is a one-call alternative to separate indicator, analytics, and enrichment tools, providing context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly specify exclusions or when not to use it.

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