run_tracxn_sectors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose a concrete behavioral trait — 'Flat 5 points per successful run' — which tells the agent the cost model and that failures aren't billed. However it omits auth requirements, error behavior for invalid tokens, and whether the data is a live or cached snapshot, leaving meaningful gaps for a scraping-style tool.

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-loaded with verb, resource and input, then a dense content enumeration, then cost. Two sentences with no filler, though the long comma-separated content list is heavier than strictly necessary.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey return contents, and it does so thoroughly (totals, top companies/investors, trends, rounds, acquisitions, IPOs, news) and adds cost. Only auth/error behavior and snapshot freshness are absent, which are minor for a one-parameter lookup.

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 coverage is 100% and there is a single required parameter, so the schema already documents the sector argument with a concrete example URL. The description's 'by URL or id token' merely restates that accepted-format fact, adding no syntax or validation detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Get one Tracxn sector overview by URL or id token') and enumerates exactly what the result contains (totals, top companies/investors, trends, rounds, IPOs, news). The word 'sector' plus 'overview' cleanly separates it from company- and investor-level siblings like run_tracxn_companies and run_tracxn_investors.

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 makes clear you need a sector URL or id token and implies usage (sector-level aggregate view), but it never says when to prefer this over alternatives such as run_tracxn_companies_search or run_tracxn_geographies, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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