Veroq

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses the cost ('2 credits') and return structure ('Holdings summary... portfolio-relevant briefs ranked by relevance score'), adding crucial behavioral context. However, it omits explicit safety classification (read-only) or error handling behavior.

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?

Excellent structure with clearly demarcated sections (WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, COST, EXAMPLE). Every sentence serves a distinct purpose; the example is appropriately placed at the end and the core purpose is front-loaded. No redundant or filler text.

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 lack of output schema, the description compensates effectively with a detailed RETURNS section explaining the holdings summary and briefs structure. With full schema coverage and cost disclosure included, the description is complete for invoking this credit-based portfolio tool.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing a concrete JSON example showing the nested holdings array structure and reinforcing the 'ticker/weight pairs' concept, which aids in correct parameter construction beyond the schema definitions.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('intelligence briefs'), and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by emphasizing the portfolio-holding relevance ranking and ticker/weight pair inputs—critical differentiation given the 40+ sibling 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?

Includes an explicit 'WHEN TO USE' section stating the tool is for monitoring news for a specific portfolio. While this provides clear context, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., veroq_ticker_news for single-ticker monitoring) to complete the versus-alternatives guidance.

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