analyze_stock

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses determinism, the Yahoo tier B baseline, SEC tier A overrides, the exclusion rule when sources disagree without a tiebreaker, and that provenance/evidence fields capture the reconciliation.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler. The core output is front-loaded, and every clause adds a meaningful behavioral rule about data hierarchy, overrides, exclusions, or response contents.

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 description adequately covers the tool's data sources, scoring behavior, override logic, and key return fields (score, confidence, provenance, evidence) even without an output schema. Minor gaps remain around explicit parameter usage and edge-case behavior, but the core context needed to invoke the tool sensibly is present.

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 has no parameter descriptions and the description never explicitly mentions 'ticker' or 'cross_check_sec'. The SEC override discussion indirectly hints at cross_check_sec's purpose, but the toggle itself is left undocumented and ticker format/expected values are not clarified.

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 a specific deliverable: a deterministic stock score (0-100) plus confidence, derived from public data. This distinguishes it from sibling screening/discovery/ranking tools by focusing on a single-stock scored analysis with a concrete numeric scale.

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 the tool: when a deterministic scored assessment of a stock is needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like screen_stocks, rank_candidates, or discover_stocks, nor does it state when not to use this tool in favor of those siblings.

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