get_sector_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies read-only behavior via 'Get' and describes the output components (market cap distribution, key metrics, sortable table), but does not state permissions, data freshness, rate limits, or side effects. Some useful context, but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, then describes output and lists supported sectors before an Args section. The Args section slightly duplicates the supported sectors list, but overall the structure is efficient and easy to scan.

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 low-complexity, one-parameter tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, output content, and valid sector values. It omits explicit usage guidance relative to siblings and data freshness details, leaving minor gaps but nothing critical for correct invocation.

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% for the single sector parameter, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly by listing all 11 supported sector values and giving examples, effectively documenting the allowed values even though the schema lacks an enum. Only minor gaps like case sensitivity remain.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('overview of stocks in a specific market sector'), and the description makes clear it is a sector-level aggregate rather than a single-stock tool. However, it does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from sibling tools like analyze_stock or compare_peers, so a 4 rather than 5.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. The first sentence implies usage for sector-level overviews, and the supported sectors list helps parameter selection, but the agent must infer when to prefer this over individual stock tools. Implied usage only.

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