analyze_osaka_nikkei

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses that the tool is proxy-based, not real-time, and that TSE holidays can trigger CALENDAR_TARGET_MISMATCH. But it does not describe return format, latency, or potential side effects, so meaningful behavioral information is still missing.

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 compact and front-loaded, stating the core purpose first and then adding only the most relevant edge-case warning. It is slightly dense with parenthetical jargon, but each sentence contributes meaningful 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?

The description covers the proxy nature and the holiday-mismatch error, but it omits any explanation of what the analysis returns or what output the agent should expect. Since there is no output schema, this is a major gap, and the horizon parameter also remains unexplained.

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 description compensates for part of the 0% schema coverage by explaining requested_dates format ('YYYY-MM-DD..YYYY-MM-DD') and its calendar behavior. However, it gives no semantic guidance for the horizon parameter, leaving one of the two parameters underspecified.

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 identifies the tool as a proxy analysis of the Osaka Nikkei using the ^N225 index with a cross-market scope, and it explicitly states what it is not: OSE micro real-time. This gives the agent a concrete resource and scope, though the generic term 'analysis' leaves some room for ambiguity.

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 when the tool is appropriate by framing it as ^N225 proxy analysis and excluding OSE micro real-time data, and it warns about TSE holiday mismatches. However, it does not name alternative tools or give explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance beyond that one exclusion.

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