buffett_quality_snapshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses parallel execution per company, the mode switching based on input count, and the type of metrics (ROE, Debt, CAGR, checks, rankings). However, it lacks details on what the '4 check types' or '5 indicators' are and does not describe output format, which slightly reduces transparency.

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 three sentences in Korean, front-loading the purpose ('버핏 퀄리티 체크리스트'). It efficiently covers the two modes, time series details, and integration. No redundant or unnecessary content.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides high-level behavioral context but omits specific definitions of 'check types' and 'indicator rankings'. The output structure is not described, which could leave an agent uncertain about the exact return format. It is adequate but could be more complete.

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% with descriptions for all four parameters. The tool description reinforces the corps parameter's mode-switching behavior but adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema. The description introduces output-related terms (ROE, CAGR, checks) but these are not tied to specific parameters, so the added value is marginal.

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 a 'Buffett quality checklist' and distinguishes two modes based on the number of companies: for one company it returns a time series of ROE/Debt/CAGR and four checks; for multiple companies it returns snapshots and rankings. It also mentions integration with the existing 'quality_compare' tool, making its purpose and behavior specific and distinct from siblings.

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?

The description implies usage for Buffett quality analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get_financials' or 'search_disclosures'. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided. The integration note with quality_compare gives some context but not clear guidance.

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