run_premarket_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. Although the description implies a read-only report, it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, does not modify state, or what happens if checks fail. For a safety-critical pre-market check, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 a single, well-phrased sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's scope. It is front-loaded with the key phrase 'Flagship pre-market health check' followed by a colon-separated list of areas. It earns its place, though it could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., bullet points) for readability.

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 complexity of a pre-market health check (multiple subsystems), the description is complete in listing what is checked but fails to explain the output format (e.g., is it a pass/fail, JSON, or report?). Without an output schema, the agent lacks context on what to expect, which is a notable gap for a flagship 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, so there is no need for parameter descriptions. The baseline of 4 is justified because schema coverage is 100% (empty) and the description adds no conflicting information. The tool's behavior is self-contained without inputs.

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 name 'run_premarket_check' combined with the description clearly states a specific verb ('run') and resource ('pre-market health check'). The description lists the covered areas: sessions, corp actions, stuck orders, SLA deadlines, validation summary, distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform individual checks like check_fix_sessions or validate_orders.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus its many sibling tools (e.g., check_fix_sessions, check_market_data_staleness). It implies comprehensiveness with the word 'flagship' but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, missing a key opportunity to aid agent decision-making.

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