generate_artinfo_formula

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry transparency. It states it creates properly formatted formulas and shows example output strings (e.g., =ARTINFO(...)). It does not explicitly mention side effects, return type, or whether it is purely a string generator, but the examples imply the output format. This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 well-structured with a clear opening statement followed by bulleted usage instructions. It is not overly verbose, but the multiple examples and conditional sections add length. It is effectively organized and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 simple formula generator with no output schema, the description covers its purpose and parameter usage thoroughly. It does not mention error handling or alternative tool selection, but those are less critical for this tool's scope. Overall, it provides sufficient context for correct 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?

The input schema provides no descriptions for top_n, parameter1, or parameter2 (0% coverage). The description fully explains each parameter with usage scenarios, examples, and default values, completely compensating for the schema gap.

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 generates ARTINFO formulas for Artemis Sheets, with specific verb 'generate' and resource 'ARTINFO formula'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly naming ARTINFO (versus ART) and providing examples.

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?

Provides explicit conditional usage instructions for both market rankings (top_n) and asset information (parameter1/parameter2), with examples. However, it does not directly compare with sibling generate_art_formula or mention alternative tools, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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