start_analysis

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it declares the task is asynchronous, mentions idempotency behavior, and notes the full report is available as an MCP resource. It also imposes a constraint on analysis_date (must not be in the future), which is not present in annotations or schema. This complements the readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true annotations without contradiction.

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 well-structured: a concise purpose sentence, a clear workflow sentence, and a bulleted Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the format makes it easy for an agent to parse.

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 (6 parameters, async behavior), the description covers purpose, workflow, parameter constraints, and resource availability. An output schema exists, so return values are not needed. The description is complete enough for an agent to start an analysis and know how to retrieve the result.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: symbol with examples, analysis_date with format and constraint, asset_type with valid values and auto-detection, depth with values and defaults, language with values, and idempotency_key with its semantics. This provides far more meaning than the bare schema.

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's action: 'Start a new financial research analysis for a given symbol.' The verb 'start' is specific, and the resource is defined. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly naming get_analysis_status and get_analysis_result for follow-up steps.

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 workflow guidance: 'Use get_analysis_status to check progress and get_analysis_result to retrieve the final summary once the task succeeds.' It names the alternative tools for subsequent actions, making the intended usage pattern clear.

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