market_briefing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format (written narrative plus structured data), the default watchlist behavior, and the ability to pass custom tickers. It does not mention side effects, freshness, or cost, but those are less critical for a read-only aggregation 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?

Three tight sentences: the first states the purpose, the second lists data sources and output type, the third handles the only meaningful parameter choice. Nothing is redundant.

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 an output schema, so return values don't need elaboration. However, the description is still missing `top` semantics and explicit guidance on when to prefer the aggregated briefing over the individual sibling tools, leaving minor but real 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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It explains `tickers` (custom list or default watchlist) but not `top`, leaving the agent to guess what 'top' controls, likely a limit or count.

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?

Description states a clear deliverable: a single-call plain-English market brief that blends multiple signal sources into narrative plus structured data. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are focused individual signals rather than an aggregate briefing.

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 this is the consolidated starting point ('One-call', 'Blends...') and mentions custom tickers, but it never explicitly says when to call this instead of conviction_score, rank_watchlist, congress_trades, etc., or when those specialized alternatives would be better.

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