equity_analyze_ticker

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it fans out to sources in parallel, blends signals, and reports missing sources as 'no signal' without guessing. No contradictions.

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 with a clear main purpose, detailed explanation, and separate sections for args and returns. Every sentence adds value, and it's appropriately sized without being verbose.

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 and available schema/annotations/output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the composite analysis, handling of missing data, and output formats. No gaps.

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 high (both parameters have descriptions in schema). The description adds value by providing usage examples and clarifying the ticker case-insensitivity and output format options, but it does not introduce new parameter semantics beyond what schema already provides.

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 runs a full multi-source analysis of a stock and returns a scored verdict. It specifies the output range (-100 to +100), the sources used (price context, insider Form 4 activity, superinvestor holdings), and how missing data is handled. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly states 'prefer it for "should I look at X?" questions; use the individual tools when you only need one dimension.' This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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