score_stock

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output includes six scoring components and the decision, which gives insight into behavior. However, it does not explicitly state whether this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention any permissions or side effects. This is moderate transparency but not comprehensive.

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, compact sentence that conveys purpose and output. Every word is purposeful with no redundancy, making it highly concise and efficiently structured.

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?

For a tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does and what the return includes (six components and a decision). It does not elaborate on the scoring methodology or parameter optionality, but given the schema coverage, it is sufficient for basic invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, with both 'symbol' and 'sponsor' described adequately. The description adds no new parameter semantics; it only contextualizes the domain. Since the schema already handles parameter meaning, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 indicates the tool provides a score breakdown for a Korean pharma company, showing all 6 scoring components and the decision. While it lacks an explicit verb like 'Get' or 'Calculate,' the intent is unambiguous. The focus on 'Korean pharma company' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_stock_technicals or evaluate_trading_signal.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'for a Korean pharma company' which implies a niche context, but it does not state when to prefer this over siblings like analyze_stock or evaluate_trading_signal, nor does it give conditions or exclusions.

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