fq_get_rrg_analysis

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

Annotations already indicate safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, not destructive). The description does not add any behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 extremely short (8 words), which seems concise but results in under-specification. Important details are missing.

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?

Given the low schema coverage and no parameter explanations, the description is insufficient for an agent to correctly use the tool. Output schema existence does not compensate for missing input documentation.

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% and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (tickers, benchmark, params). The agent receives no guidance on input meaning.

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 mentions 'Relative Rotation Graph vs benchmark,' which hints at the tool's purpose but lacks a clear verb (e.g., 'get', 'generate'). It is too brief to fully convey what the tool 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like fq_get_technical_indicators or fq_get_valuation_timeseries. The description does not provide selection criteria.

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