get_plate_heatmap

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

No annotations are provided, yet the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond being read-only. It fails to mention rate limits, authentication needs, or output format details, leaving the agent with insufficient information about the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and adding a brief use case. 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format (e.g., list of sectors with performance metrics), pagination, or how to interpret 'hot or cold' data. For a heatmap tool, more context is needed.

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 parameters well-described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what is already in the schema; it merely repeats the context ('plate/sector performance'). Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool retrieves sector heatmap data for a market, with a specific purpose of visualizing hot or cold sectors. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_company_overview or get_leading_industries by focusing on plate/sector heatmap visualization.

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 only says 'useful for visualizing which sectors are hot or cold,' which is vague. It provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites or limitations.

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