indices

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the content scope (all index types plus industry indices with change %), with no notes on payload size, the ~50 industry indices mentioned only in the schema, or freshness of the data.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that lists the index categories and the returned metric, with a bilingual gloss and no wasted wording. It is appropriately sized for a simple, two-parameter read tool.

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, no-output-schema read tool with fully described optional parameters and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is that it does not mention the market switch or clarify how it overlaps with the industry_summary sibling.

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%, so both parameters (market and only_headline) are already documented. The description's mention of 'every industry index' loosely relates to only_headline but adds no syntax, defaults, or meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the specific resource (all indices: total, equal-weight, free-float, and every industry index) and what each carries (change %), so an agent can tell it returns index data. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like industry_summary or market_overview, which is the only gap.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The agent is left to infer from the name and description whether this is the right tool versus industry_summary or market_snapshot.

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