get_sector_members

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the data source but does not mention ordering, whether weights are normalized, error behavior for invalid sectors, pagination, or the return shape. This is thin for a tool with no annotation support.

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?

A single sentence that immediately states the action, object, and data source. It is compact and front-loaded with no filler.

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 getter with two parameters, the description is minimally adequate: it names the resource and the source of the data. But with no annotations and no output schema, the lack of return-shape details, ordering guarantees, and sibling differentiation leaves meaningful gaps.

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 50%: the 'sector' parameter is well described in the schema, and 'limit' has constraints but no description. The tool description adds context that these are 'top constituents with weights,' which helps, but it does not explicitly explain the limit behavior beyond what the schema's default and maximum already imply.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('a sector's top constituents with weights'), and clarifies the data source ('the sector ETF's topHoldings'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_sectors and get_sector_performance.

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 purpose implies when to use it—whenever a caller needs the top holdings or constituents of a sector. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling alternative to prefer, such as get_fund_holders for general fund holdings.

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