sector_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes grouping by sector and metric but does not detail behavioral traits like sorting order, whether shares are percentages, data freshness, or error handling. While it mentions 'totals and share', it lacks specifics.

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: first defines purpose and metric, second gives usage condition, third lists exclusions. Every sentence adds value, and core information is front-loaded. No unnecessary words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The tool is simple with two parameters, and the description covers purpose, one parameter, and usage guidelines. Missing explanation for 'top_n' is a minor gap, but overall the description is sufficiently complete for this context.

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 compensate. It explains the 'metric' parameter with allowed values, but does not explain 'top_n' (default 20). Since top_n likely limits the number of sectors, omitting its meaning leaves a gap.

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 it aggregates totals and share by fund_focus_sector and explains the metric parameter. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly advising against use for geographic regions or project-level sectors, directing to rank_by_column instead.

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 provides explicit when-to-use ('when the user asks how pledges or flows split across fund focus sectors') and when-not-to-use (geographic regions, project-level sectors) with concrete alternative tools (rank_by_column). This leaves no ambiguity about appropriate contexts.

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