get_stock_radar

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds the important constraint that only TW stocks are supported, which is a behavioral trait. No additional side effects or permissions are disclosed, but the annotations cover the core safety profile.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core functionality, followed by a use case and limitation. Every sentence adds value, and there is no extraneous 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 read tool with two parameters and annotations, the description covers the purpose, axes, and limitations. It does not describe the output format, but since no output schema exists, this is a minor gap. Overall, it is sufficiently complete.

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 schema already provides 100% description coverage for both parameters (code and market). The description adds no new parameter information beyond what the schema already contains, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 multi-dimensional radar scores (6 axes: growth, profit quality, etc.) and specifies the use case for assessing comprehensive stock quality. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_stock_price or get_technical_indicators.

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 provides a clear use case (evaluating stock performance across aspects) and a limitation (TW only). However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or compare to alternatives like get_full_stock_analysis.

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