check_thesis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool uses a fresh Yahoo/SEC snapshot, refuses to invent a thesis by raising, and returns the new check, previous status, and a qualitative delta. It does not mention potential side effects or rate-limit behavior, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states the core action, the second adds a critical failure guardrail, and the third describes the return values. Key information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 gives enough to call the tool with the required symbol and understand the main result, but it omits operational details such as acceptable as_of formats, the exact effect of cross_check_sec, and the precise shape of the returned check. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, these gaps make it not fully 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 has 0% description coverage, so the prose must compensate. It indirectly gives meaning to symbol via save_thesis, to as_of via 'fresh market snapshot', and to cross_check_sec via 'audited SEC facts when available'—but it never explicitly names or maps these parameters, leaving an agent to infer the optional behavior.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it evaluates a stored thesis's falsifiers against a fresh market snapshot. It differentiates from siblings by referencing save_thesis as the source of the thesis and analyze_stock for SEC facts, so an agent can tell what this tool uniquely does.

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 clearly states the prerequisite—a thesis must already have been saved via save_thesis—and warns that the tool raises otherwise. It also points to analyze_stock for the SEC-facts behavior, but it does not explicitly contrast when to choose check_thesis over analyze_stock or other siblings.

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