generate_research_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It transparently describes concurrent fetching, streaming via MCP progress notifications, token-by-token output, and return of complete text. This provides a clear understanding of behavior.

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 concise, with the first sentence stating the purpose, followed by details on process and output. No wasted words; structured for readability.

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?

With an output schema present, description does not need to detail return values. It covers input (symbol), process (concurrent fetches, streaming), and output (complete report). Adequate for a single-parameter tool with high schema coverage.

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 100% (the schema includes 'Stock ticker to research, e.g. NVDA'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Generate a streaming AI research report for a stock.' The verb 'generate' and resource 'research report' are specific. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (compute_rsi, get_historical_prices, get_stock_quote) by being a higher-level composite tool.

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: for a comprehensive report, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings or provide exclusion criteria. The context is clear but not explicit.

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