analyze_stock

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, what data sources it uses, what the output format is, or any side effects. It merely states it performs analysis, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and usage instruction without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a tool of this complexity, though it could have included more detail 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns or any prerequisites. It currently only describes the action and inputs, not the output or conditions, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and results.

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 schema already describes both symbol and sponsor with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly stating they are alternatives ('or') and providing an example symbol (e.g., '005930'), which clarifies usage beyond the individual property descriptions. However, it doesn't explain precedence or behavior if both are provided.

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 it performs 'Full clinical trial + market analysis for a Korean pharma company,' which is a specific purpose that differentiates it from sibling tools focused on narrower aspects like technicals or catalysts. It also provides usage instruction (provide symbol or sponsor name). However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'analyze,' but 'analysis' serves that role, making the purpose clear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_stock_technicals or get_competition_analysis. It only states what it does and what to provide, without explaining the appropriate context or exclusions. Given the presence of sibling tools, this ambiguity creates confusion.

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