sector_stocks

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It says 'grouped' but does not mention ordering, pagination, authentication, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. It does not contradict annotations, but it provides minimal transparency for a data retrieval tool.

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 very short and to the point, which is concise. However, it lacks structure and depth – it does not front-load key details like parameters or use cases. It is efficient but under-specifies, earning a middle score on this dimension.

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?

The tool has two parameters (one an enum) and an output schema, yet the description provides almost no context about expected results or behavior. It does not clarify how 'grouped' works, whether limit applies to each page, or what the output structure contains. Compared to sibling tools, this is incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 0% – the description does not mention limit or sector at all. While the schema has an enum for sector, the description adds no meaning beyond that. For a tool with no parameter documentation, this is a significant gap that the description should have filled.

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 states a clear resource (stocks) and a grouping action by sector pages. It implies the tool returns sector-wise stock lists, which distinguishes it from index_stocks and stock_screen, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives. The purpose is understandable but lacks precision about 'grouped' semantics.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its siblings like stock_screen or index_stocks. The description mentions 'sector pages' which hints at sector-based lists, but there is no explicit context about preferred use cases or exclusions. An agent would have to infer usage from the name alone.

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