Analyze Market Event

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing that output is descriptive rather than causal and that the baseline may be supplied or automatically taken from the immediately preceding period. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the comparison behavior and evidence scope, the second states the output limitation. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

For a complex analytical tool, the description captures the input window, baseline handling, evidence dimensions, and output nature; an output schema exists so return structure need not be repeated. It could be more explicit about how baseline parameters relate to the focus window, but the core call semantics are adequately conveyed.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it only glosses a 'focus window' and 'baseline' without explaining baseline_start/end semantics or how the preceding baseline is selected. The schema gives timezone notes for start/end, but baseline fields remain underdocumented.

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 uses a specific verb ('compares') with a clearly enumerated evidence scope (price, demand/forecast, supply, merit-order, intertie, commitment, operating reserve) and states the output type ('descriptive associations, not causal claims'). This distinguishes it from single-source getters and from causal explanation tools in the sibling list.

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 when to use the tool (multi-domain comparison in a focus window) and cautions against causal interpretation, but it does not explicitly compare against close siblings like compare_market_periods or explain_market_conditions. It provides clear context without explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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