sync_sectors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does add meaningful behavioral context: it syncs quotes and approximately 30 days of bars, and includes a toggle to skip constituent refresh. However, it does not disclose whether the sync overwrites, appends, or updates existing data, nor any side effects, permissions, or failure behavior. This is reasonable but incomplete for a write/sync operation.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then explains the key parameter behavior. There is no redundant wording, and every phrase adds information.

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 tool with one optional boolean parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential scope and the parameter effect. It mentions the data types synced (quotes, bars, constituents) and the optional refresh behavior, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most cases. Minor gaps remain around return values and database update semantics, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 already provides 100% coverage with a clear description for the 'members' parameter. The description's 'members=false skips constituent refresh' restates the schema's meaning in a slightly more operational way, adding marginal value. Since the schema is already comprehensive, a 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 identifies the operation ('Sync'), the resource ('all GICS sector ETFs'), and the scope ('quote, ~30d bars, top-holding constituents'). It also differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on sector-level synchronization rather than a single stock or read-only data retrieval.

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 implies when to use this tool—when you need sector ETF data synced into the database—but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like sync_stock or read-only tools such as get_quote or get_sector_members. The 'members=false' note gives a usage hint for the optional parameter, but no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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