market_trend

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'free' hints at cost or access characteristics, but there's no mention of data freshness, source, response format, or limitations. For a tool describing what it returns, it doesn't disclose what the summary contains or how comprehensive it is.

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?

One clean, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It efficiently conveys the core purpose, though it errs on the side of under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain what the summary covers, the format of results, or how to formulate the sector parameter correctly. A well-functioning tool with one parameter should be able to fully document its behavior in a few sentences, and this falls short.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must compensate for the undocumented 'sector' parameter. The description says 'for any sector' but doesn't clarify the expected format (company name, industry name, ticker symbol), whether free-form text is acceptable, or what constitutes a valid sector input. This is a significant gap given zero schema documentation.

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 uses specific language ('Get a free summary of current market trends for any sector') with a verb and resource, clearly indicating it retrieves trend data for sectors. However, it doesn't meaningfully differentiate from siblings like enriched_search or competitive_analysis, which could also surface market information.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The 'free' qualifier hints at a distinction from paid tools, but this is not explicit. There's no mention of when the agent should prefer market_trend over enriched_search or competitive_analysis.

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