market_scores

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention rate limits, permissions, return format, or whether parameters are required (both are optional in schema). Only the list of scores is given, lacking operational context.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly states what the tool does. It wastes no words, though it could benefit from a more structured format (e.g., bullet points for the score types).

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 complexity of 'composite moat scores' and the absence of output schema or annotations, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the meaning, range, or usage of the five scores, nor does it clarify the effect of leaving parameters empty.

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 100% (both parameters have descriptions), but those descriptions are merely example values (e.g., 'PE, AR, MX, BR, CO, CL' for country), not semantic explanations. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so little value beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool provides composite moat scores with five named components (retail_aggression, price_fairness, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on specific areas like affordability or inflation. However, it doesn't explicitly state the action (e.g., 'Get' or 'Retrieve') or explain what 'moat scores' represent.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus siblings such as market_affordability or market_inflation. The description implies it's for composite scores, but fails to specify context or alternatives.

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