Bear vs Bull

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses the methodology ('Steelmans both sides with specific data') and output format ('net verdict', 'key question'), but lacks operational details like data freshness, sources, or real-time vs. historical limitations.

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 a single, efficiently structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('Generate a structured bull vs. bear case') and follows with methodology and output details. Zero redundancy—every clause 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?

For a single-parameter tool without annotations or output schema, the description adequately compensates by explaining the return structure ('structured case', 'net verdict', 'key question'). It could be improved with data source transparency, but sufficiently covers the tool's behavior and output format.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'ticker' parameter. The description mentions 'for any stock' which maps to the parameter, but adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema's own definition. Baseline 3 is appropriate given schema completeness.

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 verbs ('Generate', 'Steelmans', 'delivers') and clearly identifies the resource (bull vs. bear case for stocks). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'stock_thesis' and 'earnings_analysis' by emphasizing the balanced, dialectical approach and final verdict structure.

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 usage context ('key question investors need to answer before buying') suggesting it's for pre-investment analysis, but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance compared to siblings like 'stock_thesis' or 'valuation_snapshot'. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are named.

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