get_sector_rotation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it returns a heatmap with avg return, volume, and stock count, but does not disclose update frequency, time range, or whether it's real-time or historical. It does not contradict 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?

Three very short sentences: first defines the output, second states the purpose, third is a Vietnamese translation. No wasted words; front-loaded with key information.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description covers the return structure (heatmap with three metrics) and purpose. However, it could be more complete by specifying time range (e.g., daily, current) or frequency. Still adequate for a read-only tool.

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?

The input schema has no parameters (empty), so description coverage is irrelevant. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by describing the output structure (three metrics, identifies hot/cold sectors). The information provided compensates for missing output 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 provides a 'sector rotation heatmap' with specific metrics (average daily return, total volume, stock count) and identifies hottest/coldest sectors. It distinguishes from siblings like get_sector_rotation_playbooks and get_market_snapshot.

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 for identifying hot/cold sectors but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives (e.g., get_sector_rotation_playbooks, get_market_snapshot). No exclusions or cautions are provided.

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