egx_index_analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds parameter constraints and mentions 'full indicators' as output, but it does not disclose details like pagination, data delays, or the specific indicator names, which would be useful context beyond the 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?

The description is extremely concise: one sentence explaining the purpose followed by a structured args list. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides parameter specifics.

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?

With no output schema, the description's mention of 'full indicators' gives a high-level view but lacks specifics on return structure (e.g., fields like price change, volume, weight). However, the tool is relatively simple with all parameters explained, and annotations cover safety. It is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and usage, though a bit more output detail would make it fully 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 description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by enumerating valid index values (EGX30, EGX70, EGX100, SHARIAH33, EGX35LV, TAMAYUZ), valid timeframes (5m, 15m, 1h, 4h, 1D, 1W, 1M) with a default of 1D, and explaining the limit parameter as 'Number of stocks to show in detail (max 100)'. This adds complete semantics beyond 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 states 'Analyse an EGX index showing constituent performance with full indicators', providing a specific verb (analyse), resource (EGX index), and output scope (constituent performance with indicators). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like egx_market_overview or egx_sector_scan, which focus on broader market or sector views.

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 through the specification of index, timeframe, and limit, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks guidance such as 'use this for index-level constituent analysis instead of market overview' or any exclusionary context.

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