get_sector_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions combining daily performance and P/E ratio into a heatmap and supports granularity. However, it does not disclose data source, staleness, caching behavior, or limitations. The use_cache parameter is in the schema but not highlighted in the description.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema and full parameter documentation, the description is mostly complete. It explains the tool's purpose and output format. However, it could briefly mention that date defaults to latest and that sector/symbols are filters.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only provides a general overview of the output. No specific parameter details are elaborated in the description.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'sector or industry performance and valuation overview'. It specifies that it combines daily performance and P/E ratio into a heatmap, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_price_performance_windows or get_market_context.

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 obtaining a unified sector/industry heatmap, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compare_peers or get_market_context). No exclusion criteria or scenarios are provided.

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