veroq_intelligence

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses cost (5 credits), return types (impact scores, tickers, etc.), and example. Minor omission: no mention of data freshness or if results are cached, but overall transparent.

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: a brief sentence, followed by clear labeled sections (when to use, returns, cost, example). Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 no output schema and simple input, the description covers input, output, use case, and cost. Could specify output format more precisely, but for a single-param tool, it's adequate.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter (topic) with a good description. Description adds an example and restates purpose, but does not significantly enhance beyond schema. Baseline 3 applies per guidelines.

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 performs cross-category impact analysis, with a verb ('analyze') and resource ('how a topic affects multiple sectors and asset classes'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like veroq_events or veroq_compare by focusing on second-order effects across sectors.

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?

Explicitly includes a 'WHEN TO USE' section with a concrete example (Fed rate decision impacting multiple asset classes), giving clear guidance on appropriate use cases. No explicit exclusion, but the positive context is strong.

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